From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-03 04:50:02
>> Recently there was some discussion about adding config support for
>> C++0x features.
>> The attached test would pass for compilers implementing Core Issue
>> 106 - reference collapsing.
>> There are a couple of associated issues:
>> Is this our preferred naming convention?
Personally I'm easy on this, Doug has already started some BOOST_CXX0X
macros so I guess we should continue the trend. Which reminds me, we still
need test cases for Doug's new macros!
>> Does the config generating script need updating to support it?
Either we need to update the management scripts, or call the filename
boost_has_XXXX irrespective of the actual macro name and it will do the
If this is going to be a trend, might be better to update the scripts.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk