From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-11 02:30:15
David Abrahams wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>>Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>How about these?
>>>>
>>>> #define BOOST_COMPILER_WITH_VERSION(compiler,version) \
>>>> (compiler == version)
>>>>
>>>> #define BOOST_COMPILER_ABOVE_VERSION(compiler,version) \
>>>> (compiler > version)
>>>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>No. That's what BOOST_WORKAROUND does, and BOOST_WORKAROUND does it
>>>better. Please read
>>>http://www.boost-consulting.com/boost/boost/detail/workaround.hpp
>>>
>>
>>Know it already. Personally I'm not too much into the stuff I posted either. But
>>the code shows a reasonable set of comparison operations if we encode them in the
>>macro name.
>
>
> Why should we do that when we can just write the comparison operator
> with BOOST_WORKAROUND?
>
No idea, it was part of Edward's proposal.
>
>>We might as well (which seems even better to me) take the comparison operator as
>>part of the macro argument like BOOST_WORKAROUND does:
>>
>> #define BOOST_MSVC_VERSION(test) (defined(BOOST_MSVC) && (BOOST_MSVC test))
>
>
> That's not legal code. What are you trying to accomplish that
> BOOST_WORKAROUND doesn't already provide?
>
Right. s/defined(BOOST_MSVC)/(BOOST_MSVC != 0)/
>
>>And while we're at it -- I'ld like a variant of BOOST_TESTED_AT, "BOOST_TESTED"
>>that also takes the comparison operator:
>>
>> BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC,BOOST_TESTED(> 1200))
>
>
> And what do you think that is supposed to do?
>
Evaluate to true if we use MSVC and the compiler version is above 1200. That is,
with the ability to detect incomplete workarounds (like BOOST_TESTED_AT). It
further allows us more flexibility to express what was tested and what wasn't when
submitting patches.
Regards,
Tobias