From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-25 16:49:38
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun May 25 2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
>> 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?
> IIRC the convention is BOOST_HAS_* when it's describing a nonstandard
> feature and BOOST_NO_* when it's describing a standard feature that is
> not supported be the compiler. In other words, IIUC, BOOST_NO_* is
> reserved for describing nonconformances.
Yes, that's my understanding too.
>> 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
>> these macros.
> of course, the fact that nonstandard features are now becoming standard
> makes things somewhat awkward.
Yes. Doug and I had a discussion of this, and decided that in the long
run we were better off with the BOOST_NO_* approach.
>> 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?
> That's not a bad idea. I wonder whether it might not be better just to
> #define constexpr
> in that case, and use that symbol.
I thought of that, and decided it wasn't a good idea to define a symbol
that non-boost code might also be using and/or redefining. But that's
only a weak opinion, and I'm open to reconsidering it. What do others think?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk