Re: [boost] Re: Next revision of boost::thread

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-13 14:30:36

> Beman Dawes said:

[...]

> > The idea of mandatory "options" is new to me. Wonders never cease.

Actually the idea isn't that new. An example of a mandatory C++ option is,
for example, function template partial ordering. The compilers have to
support it in theory, but in practice some don't, and
BOOST_NO_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_ORDERING is the macro that indicates (absence of)
support.

I guess the POSIX mandatory options are similar in spirit, i.e. something
expected to go away as implementations catch up.