From: Douglas Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-07 09:56:33
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 11:49 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
> Doug Gregor wrote:
> > http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/11/113534.php
> > 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.
> Ah! Thanks!
> ...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
> current practice.
> Has a final decision been made on this?
I ended up using BOOST_HAS_*, because C++0x features seemed to be such a
long way off back then :)
I don't mind either way. It depends on whether we C++0x as our target
language (with workarounds for C++98) or whether C++98 is our target
language (with extensions for C++0x). I imagine that over the next 5-10
years, our view will shift from the latter to the former... perhaps that
means we should just go with BOOST_NO_* now and save ourselves the
trouble of changing our minds later.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk