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
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 :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk