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

From: Sean Hunt (rideau3_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-26 22:32:30

Beman Dawes wrote:
> OK, I propose to add the following:
> 
> // Rename versions some current BOOST_HAS_* macros to:
> 
> BOOST_NO_CONCEPTS
> BOOST_NO_DECLTYPE
> BOOST_NO_LONG_LONG
> BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFS
> BOOST_NO_STATIC_ASSERT
> BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_TMPL
> 
> // 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?
> 
> --Beman

Jumping in at this point in the conversation, why not just define the
BOOST_NO_* macros and define the BOOST_HAS_* as being !BOOST_NO_*. That
way we get both? I know that eventually people will want to remove one
or the other, but we could introduce a backwards-compatibility header
that triggers a deprecation warning or something when it comes to that.

Sean Hunt