[swift-evolution] [META] Re-invigorating the compiler directive discussion

[Erica Sadun]

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Joe Groff <jgroff at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 12, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> #if platform(Apple) tests for platform families, including Apple, Linux, Unix, Windows
>> #if imports(UIKit) tests for framework support, differentiating, for example, Mac code from iOS and tvOS code.
>> #if target(simulator) and #if target(device) represent a common categorization requirement, such as Metal, Keychain, and AVFoundation Camera code. 
>> #if target(32bit) and #if target(64bit) tests for 32 and 64 bit architecture families. 
>> #if target(bigendian) and #if target(littleendian) tests for big and little endianness.
>> #if config(debug) tests for debug builds. 
> I agree that expanding our repertoire here is badly needed. I think it'd be better to have a specific #if foo(...) name for each combination of independent choices. It's a nice property of our current design that, when you see #if foo(X) || foo(Y), you know foo(X) and foo(Y) are mutually exclusive. You'd lose that if you had both target(32bit) and target(bigendian).
> 
> -Joe

Ah. I was trying to *reduce* the number of distinct fooities. 

#if bitwidth(32) and #if bitwidth(64) tests for 32 and 64 bit architecture families. 
#if endian(big) and #if endian(little) tests for big and little endianness.
better?

Also, should I break this up into distinct proposals or one core utility group?

-- E

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160314/d4ef3abc/attachment.html>