From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-08 07:20:59
"John Maddock" <jm_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I found that boost has very powerful configuration system
>> (boost/config.hpp and around...)
>> but why use macros?
>> there is another solution described here, let discuss it...
>> may be there are some troubles, invisible for me, that prevent from using
>> this technique
>> in libraries like boost?
>
> I think that there are two problems:
>
> 1) Your scheme requires that all possible implementations can be parsed by
> the compiler - that won't be true for macros describing defects.
> 2) Your scheme can't cope with optional features (long long or
> <someheader.h>).
>
> Oh, and macros are probably simpler, if ugly.
Yeah, the effort it would take to implement and maintain a one-line
workaround in a 20-line function for different compilers would go
through the roof.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com