Re: [boost] [config] Last call for choosing macro names

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-17 08:03:49

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:02:30 -0400, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>These cases are comparitively rare
>
>#if BOOST_CXX_FOO >= BOOST_VERSION_NUMBER(2,0,0)  \
>    && BOOST_CXX_FOO < BOOST_VERSION_NUMBER(3,0,0)
>
>> or 'if major=3 and minor>2', so I'd rather need BOOST_CXX_FOO_MAJOR etc.
>
>#if BOOST_CXX_FOO >= BOOST_VERSION_NUMBER(3,2,0)  \
>    && BOOST_CXX_FOO < BOOST_VERSION_NUMBER(4,0,0)

We can do better than that, stay tuned! :) The last piece of the
puzzle, now, is choosing a migration plan. BOOST_WORKAROUND will have
a different interface and I don't think it is feasible to replace all
invocations in one sweep (though I haven't actually counted them) and
even if it is the risk of destabilization is high. What about
momentarily use BOOST_WORKAROUND_2 as name for the new macro and
gradually do the transition? At the end, we would have just to change
BOOST_WORKAROUND_2 to BOOST_WORKAROUND everywhere. Not that I like
this too much but this is the only idea that I have.

--
[ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
[    resume:  available on request      ]