Subject: Re: [boost] Fw: Interlibrary version cchecking
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-18 16:03:45
At Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:29:14 -0800,
Robert Ramey wrote:
> > 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
Really? What parts do you see as similar? It jumps out at me that your
proposal is full of source code and that page doesn't seem to have any
recommendations for source code (unless I overlooked them)
> 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.'
Yes, something along these lines. I'm just wondering if you are
reinventing tank treads when we already have a perfectly good wheel.
> > 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.
Why do you want the mpl_<...> thing in the first place?
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk