Re: [boost] C++0x and Boost

From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-23 06:41:07

On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 09:34 +0000, John Maddock wrote:
> > As library maintainer John Maddoc should get the final call, but my
> > preference would be BOOST_NO_FEATURE forms.  It should be fairly easy
> > to create a single header that all compiler configs can use, and then
> > selectively undef features in the compiler config file itself as new
> > features are implemented.
> 
> It's a tricky one this: normally we would use BOOST_HAS_WHATEVER since these 
> features aren't std yet, however as you say, they will be soon.  So I could 
> go either way.  The names should probably be either BOOST_HAS_WHATEVER or 
> BOOST_NO_WHATEVER though so it's clear what we're talking about!

I created the new category BOOST_CXX0X_* to avoid the question
entirely :)

I really don't like BOOST_HAS_*, because that's only for optional
features. C++0x isn't optional; it's a different standard.

Alisdair's idea of using BOOST_NO_* (with a big #define header, followed
by undefs for compilers) is intruiging... I'd be okay with that.

I'll do whatever John asks :)

  Cheers,
  Doug