From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-26 21:54:49
John Maddock wrote:
> 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.
OK, I propose to add the following:
// Rename versions some current BOOST_HAS_* macros to:
// New macros:
BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS // no enum class
BOOST_NO_RAW_LITS // no raw character or string literals
BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITS // no Unicode literals
BOOST_NO_OX_CHAR_TYPES // no char16_t or char32_t
BOOST_NO_EXPLICIT_CVT_OP // no explicit operator T()
BOOST_NO_DFLT_AND_DEL_FUNCS // no = default or = delete functions
BOOST_NO_CONSTEXPR // no constexpr
Comments or suggestions?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk