Subject: Re: [boost] Fw: Interlibrary version cchecking
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-18 14:29:14
David Abrahams wrote:
> At Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:05:15 -0800,
> Robert Ramey wrote:
> Seems like you need something like this somewhere. Whether belt and
> suspenders are needed or not is open to debate I suppose. If you
> think your source code will be used outside the environment of any
> given tool, it's probably a good idea to have these internal checks.
> One issue, of course, is that some library dependencies aren't Boost
> libraries, and they have (or don't) their own way of indicating their
Of course, and those will always have to be addressed in an adhoc
> Your scheme seems a lot more complicated than industry
> standard practice, which is to use one or two long integer constants
> as macros (c.f. __GCC_VERSION__ and friends). Since I wrote that, I have
> had occasion to investigate the versioning
scheme suggested for linux shared libraries. It seems to me that this
proposal is remarkably similar to that used for these libraries:
among many others. My proposal is only an idea and I'm
not prepared to mount a serious defense of it. But it seems
that something along these lines is going to be necessary.'
> That's also useful for > #ifdefing, whereas mpl::int_<>s are not.
Well, if you want to enhance my proposal to add constants and
have the mpl_<... or static assert use those constants, that would
be fine with me.