From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-14 15:14:52
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> You could also do
>>>
>>> BOOST_WORKADOUND(GCC, LESS(3,2,3))
>>> BOOST_WORKADOUND(GCC, LESS_EQ(3,2,3))
>>> BOOST_WORKADOUND(GCC, TESTED_AT(3,2,3))
>>> ...
>>
>> Ick; why use a name to stand in for the operator when we can use the
>> operator directly?
>
> For uniform treatment of comparisons and TESTED_AT. Maybe there's some other way
> to do the same thing.
I think I like
BOOST_WORKAROUND_TESTED_AT(GCC, 3,2,3)
myself.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com