> OK, now I've rewritten and re-thought this email about 5 times ;-) Only 5 ? ;->
> I'm going to ask a controversial question: what is the point of > checking the version at all in the case above, really? If you buy my > argument that the user surely knows what he's doing when he specifies > BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG, there's no reason not to let BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG > turn off workarounds always. In that case, the test above might as > well just be: > > # if defined(__BORLANDC__) && !defined(BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG) > > And, it seems to me, if the presumption that the bug being worked > around is likely present in future versions is correct, this is better > because there's no associated maintenance cost (i.e. nobody has to > bump the version number). I think the current "accepted form" quoted > by you and Aleksey is theoretically interesting, but the version > number doesn't have much value other than as a comment. Wouldn't > > > #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, != 0) // last checked at 0x569 > > or > > #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, +0x569) > // not sure about overflow issues, so maybe not > > be just as good, or maybe even better? I agree completely, and I'll even promise not to change my mind for at least a week :-) John Maddock http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
