Re: [boost] [config] C++0x macros

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-26 21:54:49

John Maddock wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Yes. Doug and I had a discussion of this, and decided that in the long
>> run we were better off with the BOOST_NO_* approach.
> 
> That's fine with me too.

OK, I propose to add the following:

// Rename versions some current BOOST_HAS_* macros to:

BOOST_NO_CONCEPTS
BOOST_NO_DECLTYPE
BOOST_NO_LONG_LONG
BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFS
BOOST_NO_STATIC_ASSERT
BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_TMPL

// New macros:

BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS         // no enum class
BOOST_NO_RAW_LITS             // no raw character or string literals
BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITS         // no Unicode literals
BOOST_NO_OX_CHAR_TYPES        // no char16_t or char32_t
BOOST_NO_EXPLICIT_CVT_OP      // no explicit operator T()
BOOST_NO_DFLT_AND_DEL_FUNCS   // no = default or = delete functions
BOOST_NO_CONSTEXPR            // no constexpr

Comments or suggestions?

--Beman