On 2013-11-05, Dominik Psenner wrote: >>> 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. not yet done, but will do :-) >>> 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? or NETCF, yes. We still define NET (or DOTNET soonish) but I don't think it is actually used in the sources. Stefan
