• Jay Norwood (4/4) Apr 10 2016 Seems like there should be an extra level to the version
• hilop (4/8) Apr 10 2016 This will never be done. The language creator has strong
• Mike Parker (2/6) Apr 10 2016 What's wrong with version(X86)?
• Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn (21/25) Apr 10 2016 In most cases that I've seen, you only need one level of version stateme...

Jay Norwood <jayn prismnet.com> writes:

Seems like there should be an extra level to the version 
statement, something like version(arch,x86).

I must be missing something about the intended use of the version 
statement.

hilop <hilop hilop.online.net> writes:

On Sunday, 10 April 2016 at 13:58:17 UTC, Jay Norwood wrote:
 Seems like there should be an extra level to the version 
 statement, something like version(arch,x86).

 I must be missing something about the intended use of the 
 version statement.

This will never be done. The language creator has strong 
arguments against that. If you search a bit on the forum you'll 
find the topics where the rationale is given.

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 10 April 2016 at 13:58:17 UTC, Jay Norwood wrote:
 Seems like there should be an extra level to the version 
 statement, something like version(arch,x86).

 I must be missing something about the intended use of the 
 version statement.

What's wrong with version(X86)?

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 13:58:17 Jay Norwood via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 Seems like there should be an extra level to the version
 statement, something like version(arch,x86).

 I must be missing something about the intended use of the version
 statement.

In most cases that I've seen, you only need one level of version statement -
usually a version for the OS is all that's needed. The need for specifying
the architecture is _very_ rare from what I've seen. But if you need more
levels, then just nest version statements. e.g.

version(linux)
{
    version(X86)
    {
    }
    else version(X86_64)
    {
    }
}

There some places in druntime that nest like that (I think primarily to
separate the various C runtimes on systems that don't have only one), but as
it is, version statements of any kind aren't needed all that frequently in
Phobos - and when they are, it's almost inevitably because they're wrapping
C functionality. Pure D stuff tends to be system-agnostic and therefore not
version-statement heavy.

- Jonathan M Davis