From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-25 08:37:28
There was some past discussion of changing the C++0x BOOST_HAS_* macros
to BOOST_NO_*. Several participants thought that was better for the long
run. Who needs to do what to make this happen?
The motivation for asking is that I'm starting to update some Boost code
that could benefit from C++0x features and so would like to start using
Also, a C++03 workaround for the lack of the C++0x keyword "constexpr"
is to simply omit it. Should we have a BOOST_CONSTEXPR macro defined as
"constexpr" for platforms that support constexpr, otherwise as null?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk