>> Having a general FRAMEWORK_X_Y define wouldn't be bad. But maybe
>every
>> FRAMEWORK_X_Y should read as "FRAMEWORK_X_Y_OR_ABOVE" since
>every framework
>> is compatible to its ancestors.
>
>fine with me, I'll make the adjustments.
Awesome.
>> Still I would keep these defines:
>
>> * MONO := set when build for Mono
>> * MONO_X_Y := set when built for Mono
>> * DOTNET := set when built for the .NET framework
>
>What you call DOTNET currently is NET, but that will be easy to change.
>In addition we still have NETCF for Compact Framework.
>
>My hope is we don't need MONO_X_Y but only MONO and the matching
>FRAMEWORK_X_Y_OR_ABOVE. We'll see once we try to target Mono 3.5 and
>4.0 as well but I'd rather reduce the repetition all our different build
>targets cause in the build files, first.
So we assume an implicit DOTNET as long as there is no MONO, right?
>> building for a newer .NET framework should define all other frameworks
>> since every future framework will be compatible to all ancestors. For
>> example while building for .NET 4.0 the following defines should be
>> set:
>
>> {FRAMEWORK_2_0_OR_ABOVE, FRAMEWORK_3_0_OR_ABOVE,
>FRAMEWORK_3_5_OR_ABOVE,
>> FRAMEWORK_4_0_OR_ABOVE, DOTNET}
>
>Agreed in general, but given FRAMEWORK_2_0_OR_ABOVE is our baseline I'd
>assume it implicitly for all builds (that are not NETCF). Also
>FRAMEWORK_3_0_OR_ABOVE wouldn't be used for anything and I don't
>expect
>us to use it. Let's introduce it once we need it.
Agreed, let's keep things as small and simple as possible.
>> Despite all this, I'm not sure if we need something like
>> FRAMEWORK_X_Y_ONLY. This would need further evaluation based on the
>> current codebase.
>
>There is no such case right now. We really only have a single place
>where 3.5 is checked and it is enabled for 4.0 as well.
>
>If we ever need it, we can simulate it with something like
>
>#if FRAMEWORK_3_5_OR_ABOVE && !FRAMEWORK_4_0_OR_ABOVE
Indeed.
