"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message news:c3nitg$v3m$1@sea.gmane.org...
"Rene Rivera" <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote in message news:405F4527.2050808@redshift-software.com...
[...] Personally I would prefer that they use the compiler name rather than the developer name. This is to avoid possible future (and past) conflict for companies that have more than one compiler. [...]
I agree that the compiler name is better. Consider BOOST_INPRISE vs. BOOST_BORLAND, for example. ;) I think most people know the compiler names well enough that they will be familiar.
I'm not against using compiler names instead of company names, but I don't think it solves very much. Would we use the name of the development environment, or the name of the command-line tool? If we're really worried about one company producing more than one compiler, we should use the name of the command-line tool, since both tools could conceivably be offered in one development environment. Then we'd have funny names like BOOST_ICL and BOOST_MWCPPC In either case, the names can change from version to version, e.g., C++ Builder --> C++BuilderX bcc --> bccx (While it might make sense to have different macros for Borland 5.x and Borland 6.x -- since they're completely different compilers -- I wouldn't want the difference to be expressed as the presence or absence of 'X'.) Jonathan