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
>> #define constexpr
>> in that case, and use that symbol.
> I thought of that, and decided it wasn't a good idea to define a
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk