Is there a compiler symbol that is defined / not-defined when the compiler is a beta?

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b6rm5b$1bb7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Is there a compiler symbol that is defined / not-defined when the compiler is a beta?

No.

Can we have one? :)


"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b6sjm5$crt$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b6rm5b$1bb7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Is there a compiler symbol that is defined / not-defined when the
compiler
> > is a beta?
>
> No.
>
>

I'd rather not. They're supposed to be indistinguishable from the final.

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b6ss1c$ji9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Can we have one? :)
>
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b6sjm5$crt$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > "Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b6rm5b$1bb7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > Is there a compiler symbol that is defined / not-defined when the
> compiler
> > > is a beta?
> >
> > No.
> >
> >
>
>

I guess it'll be ok once the version number is fixed.

These things are always a "nice to have" though, and I struggle to see the harm. :).



"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b6ssll$k6s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'd rather not. They're supposed to be indistinguishable from the final.
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b6ss1c$ji9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Can we have one? :)
> >
> >
> > "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b6sjm5$crt$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> > >
> > > "Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b6rm5b$1bb7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > Is there a compiler symbol that is defined / not-defined when the
> > compiler
> > > > is a beta?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b6su4a$lfd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I guess it'll be ok once the version number is fixed.
>
> These things are always a "nice to have" though, and I struggle to see the harm. :).

The harm is not that in particular, just the endless proliferation of compiler predefines and detritus. There are so many now that are of questionable virtue, but I can't yank them because somebody's build depends on it. I really want to raise the bar that any new ones need to pass.

Sounds fair enough

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b6sv49$m3c$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:b6su4a$lfd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I guess it'll be ok once the version number is fixed.
> >
> > These things are always a "nice to have" though, and I struggle to see
the
> > harm. :).
>
> The harm is not that in particular, just the endless proliferation of compiler predefines and detritus. There are so many now that are of questionable virtue, but I can't yank them because somebody's build
depends
> on it. I really want to raise the bar that any new ones need to pass.
>
>