From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-08 14:09:12
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 11:49 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Doug Gregor wrote:
>>> 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 :)
Yeah, but getting closer every day:-)
> 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.
That's my view, too! Why not plan for the future now?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk