Re: [boost] [config] Macro proposal

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-14 18:20:37

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:42:47 -0400, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> [eliminating commas...] would require some preprocessing
>> magic which we already preferred not to have when deciding the first
>> implementation of BOOST_WORKAROUND(); see, for instance
>>
>>  http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/12/40843.php
>
>I don't see that conclusion there, but I have to say that I don't
>think whitespace is particularly better than commas here.

Yup, let me wear the boost historian hat :-O

That post was the end - almost 4 years ago! - of the long "[boost]
[Config] Testing instructions for compiler vendors" thread:

 http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/12/index.php

whose last part was mainly between you, Paul Mensonides and me. Among
the several syntax choices we went so far to consider things like:

 BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, (!) <= 0x530)

I opposed that one (and other similar) because they required several
pp-lib tricks and "primitives", for the only benefit of a nice syntax.
Despite some divergence on details, we basically all agreed that
something simpler was in order (see your last sentence here):

 http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/12/41337.php

John also expressed along the same lines:

 http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/12/41355.php

and thus we had the BOOST_WORKAROUND() implementation that we all know
:)

--Gennaro.