From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-04 14:24:23
On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> In another thread, Doug Gregor wrote:
>> The other issue is that it would be great to test gcc-4.3 in C++0x
>> mode (-std=gnu++0x) as well as C++98 mode. Then we can start taking
>> advantage of some of the 0x features.
> Yes, and some other compilers are also starting to add C++0x features.
> Has there been any discussion as to how Boost.Config is going to
> availability or not of C++0x features? That would seem to be the first
> step in what promises to be a long, winding, but *very* interesting
> productive path.
I started this discussion a while ago:
Boost 1.35.0 already contains some macros for C++0x features available
now, e.g., BOOST_HAS_STATIC_ASSERT (used by boost/static_assert.hpp),
BOOST_HAS_VARIADIC_TMPL, BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS, and
BOOST_HAS_DECLTYPE. They have their own section of the Boost.Config
documentation ("Macros that describe C++0x Features"), and I believe
that accurately reflect the capabilities of released compilers.
I'm hoping that my BoostCon tutorial on C++0x and Dan & Joel's
Fusion0x tutorial will spur some interest in updating Boost libraries
with C++0x support.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk