03.03.2016, 20:15, "Welbourne Edward" <[email protected]>: >> Why do we insist on testing for something that proxies the real need? >> We need X and we know that Y provides X, so we test for Y. Why can't >> we just test for X? > > Indeed. It reminds me of the web-sites that used to test with a few > browsers and refuse access to anything but the known-good versions of > those browsers - even if the untested browser works just fine. It > pointlessly limits use and pressures folk into using one of the few > things you've taken the trouble to test with; this marginalises new > entrants in the market by punishing their customers for daring to try > something new. > > Likewise for compilers: you want a particular feature, so test for that. > Don't oblige your users to chose from among the few compilers you can > spare the time to test, version-by-version. Better yet, when the > compiler supplier introduces a regression that breaks support for some > feature, the test automatically detects the problem in a version you > never had a chance to check because it's been released since you > released your code.
With web sites you can change User-Agent string to see them; likewise, with compilers you can comment out checks and see if it works for you. It is just unsupported, in both cases. -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
