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

From: anthony.ajw_at_[hidden]
Date: 2008-05-27 08:59:00

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 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?
>
> That's an interesting idea, although perhaps a little to cute. What do 
> others think? Does it add value or just confuse?

Well, for one thing it would mean that those of us who have started to
use the BOOST_HAS_ variants won't suddenly find our code broken.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams            | Just Software Solutions Ltd
Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL