Re: [boost] Defining compilers suggestion

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-14 12:54:10

"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> Or we could arrange to write:
>>>
>>>      #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_GCC,< 3,2,3)
>>
>> Nobody likes that one?
>>
>> What about:
>>
>>       #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(GCC,< 3,2,3)
>>
>> Pretty succinct, I think.
>
> Are you sure it's legal to take "< 3" and paste on the remaining characters,
> e.g., "0404"? My knowledge of the preprocesor is pretty limited, but this sounds
> like something Paul M. told me was undefined.

No, I'm not sure.  I believe you if you tell me it's undefined.  We
might need another comma.

#if BOOST_WORKAROUND(GCC, <, 3,2,3)

>> I'm not sure about getting BOOST_TESTED_AT to work here.
>>
>>       #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(GCC, BOOST_TESTED_AT 3,2,3)
>>
>> would be nice syntax, but I'm just not sure how workable it is.  We
>> may end up with
>>
>>       #if BOOST_WORKAROUND_TESTED_AT(GCC, 3,2,3)
>>
>> which is actually pretty nice and requires fewer fancy tricks to
>> implement.
>
> You could also do
>
>      BOOST_WORKADOUND(GCC, LESS(3,2,3))
>      BOOST_WORKADOUND(GCC, LESS_EQ(3,2,3))
>      BOOST_WORKADOUND(GCC, TESTED_AT(3,2,3))
>      ...

Ick; why use a name to stand in for the operator when we can use the
operator directly?  

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com