David Abrahams wrote:
Andrey Melnikov <melnikov@simplexsoft.com> writes:
What about
BOOST_WORKAROUND_BEFORE(GCC, 3,2,3) BOOST_WORKAROUND_AFTER(GCC, 3,2,3) BOOST_WORKAROUND_STARTING_FROM(GCC, 3,2,3)
and other plain English words instead of syntactic tricks with putting < signs as macro parameters? Is it going to be more verbose and cryptic than using macrost with < ?
Why do you call that a "syntactic trick?" The operator gets used in the macro expansion and ends up being used by the preprocessor with the obvious semantics. Just about every other token in
BOOST_WORKAROUND(GCC, >, 3,2,3)
is trickier than the ">".
I didn't mean a preprocessor trick. I only mean that for people it's unusual to see ">" sign alone or in an "unary" notation like "> 030203". They will have to look at the macro itself to see how this ">" works.
The desire to spell out comparison operations as english words seems akin to the desire to embed compiler/ide versions in macro names.
It really is akin. I'd like to see something more transparent and intuitive. I don't like the idea with words very much, but I don't like ">" s
#if !BOOST_WORKAROUND(MSVC, <=, 7,0,0) && !BOOST_WORKAROUND(MWERKS, <, 9,0,0)
Can we get rid of these "!" signs?
!a && !b
looks too verbose to me.
You can always write:
#if !(BOOST_WORKAROUND(MSVC, <=, 7,0,0) || BOOST_WORKAROUND(MWERKS, <, 9,0,0))
but it's not much better.
Do you think an empty branch and #else is worse than "!" ? Negations are rather hard to decipher. #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(MSVC, <=, 7,0,0) || BOOST_WORKAROUND(MWERKS, <, 9,0,0) // these compilers doesn't support these features #else // actual code for cases when no workarounds are nesessary #endif I always decode the former expression to the latter in my mind. I think #else is a better way to express a negation than "!" in this case. Andrey