From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-05 11:49:17
Doug Gregor wrote:
> 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.
...pause while I read that thread...
There was some discussion of making the macros negative;
BOOST_NO_STATIC_ASSERT or possibly BOOST_NO_0X_STATIC_ASSERT. That seems
both better from the maintenance standpoint, and more in line with our
Has a final decision been made on this?
> 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.
> - Doug
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk