David Abrahams wrote:
At Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:05:15 -0800, Robert Ramey wrote: Seems like you need something like this somewhere. Whether belt and suspenders are needed or not is open to debate I suppose. If you think your source code will be used outside the environment of any given tool, it's probably a good idea to have these internal checks.
One issue, of course, is that some library dependencies aren't Boost libraries, and they have (or don't) their own way of indicating their version.
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
Of course, and those will always have to be addressed in an adhoc manner. proposal is remarkably similar to that used for these libraries: see http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html 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.'
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. Robert Ramey