Subject: Re: [boost] [PREDEF] Review for the Boost.Predef library by Rene Riviera
From: Iain Denniston (iain.denniston_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-28 04:24:28
> - The above assume a NULL defined style macro rather than an undefined
> macro style as has been mentioned I think perhaps undefined macros
> are the better choice for these very low level definitions. Id
> suggest its likely that if you have to use these for areas of the
> code then the code being blocked off is likely not legal in most other
> cases (and so the alternative C++ compiler if usage would not be
> possible anyway and so removes the only reason I can see to have
> things as they are).
Ahem - this point can be safely ignored :o)
I actually knew this wasn't the "only" reason to have things as they are
even before it was spelled out (in another post) - honest! I blame a
sleep addled brain.
However, the choice between undefined and null defined is perhaps best
left to the user? So, a set of BOOST_CXX_GCC and associated
BOOST_CXX_GCC_VERSION might be worth doing - the first is defined only
on when the compiler is GCC (or emulates GCC) the second is always
defined, but null when not GCC. Best of both worlds, no?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk