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

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-24 06:52:40

Douglas Gregor wrote:

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

Understood.

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

Except it's not a final std yet?

> 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 :)

Oooo, power :-)

OK there are a couple of outstanding issues:

* We need test cases for the new macros.
* The config-tools (the configure script and the small generator program 
under libs/config/tools that updates the test driver and 
config_test.cpp+config_info.cpp) assume that the macros are named BOOST_NO_* 
or BOOST_HAS_HAS_*, without that they don't work :-(

The general proceedure for new macros is documented here: 
http://www.boost.org/libs/config/config.htm#defect_guidelines

So could you either use BOOST_HAS_* or else modify the configure.in script 
and the generate.cpp program to do the right thing?

Many thanks,

John.