Re: [boost] [config] C++0x macros

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-26 04:00:14

Beman Dawes wrote:
> 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.

That's fine with me too.

>>> 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_CONSTEXP maybe?

John.