In article <uekrke8bn.fsf@boost-consulting.com>, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
I see no reason to use names longer than those suggested below.
BOOST_BORLAND BOOST_COMEAU BOOST_GNU (1) BOOST_INTEL BOOST_MSVC (2)
I would suggest using BOOST_CC_* or BOOST_COMPILER_*, to avoid possible ambiguities. For instance, BOOST_INTEL in and of itself does not make it clear whether it denotes a compiler-specific kludge or an architecture-specific kludge. If the full name of the macro is BOOST_FOO, then the assumption is that FOO will never be ambiguous within boost. It is therefore a poor choice to make FOO contain nothing but a vendor-chosen name, IMO. meeroh -- If this message helped you, consider buying an item from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>