Re: [boost] [C++0x][config] Taking advantage of C++0x features as they become available

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.

  - Doug