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

From: Douglas Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-27 09:56:10

Beman Dawes wrote:
> 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:
>
> BOOST_NO_CONCEPTS
>   
Concepts isn't in the working paper, so we shouldn't change 
BOOST_HAS_CONCEPTS to BOOST_NO_CONCEPTS.
> BOOST_NO_DECLTYPE
> BOOST_NO_LONG_LONG
> BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFS
>   
BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFERENCES would be better (I know this was my fault, 
but since we're doing the rename...)

> BOOST_NO_STATIC_ASSERT
>   

> BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_TMPL
>   
Ugh.  BOOST_NO_VARIANT_TEMPLATES would be better (also my fault <g>)

> // New macros:
>
> BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS         // no enum class
> BOOST_NO_RAW_LITS             // no raw character or string literals
>   
BOOST_NO_RAW_LITERALS?
> BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITS         // no Unicode literals
>   
BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITERALS?

> BOOST_NO_OX_CHAR_TYPES        // no char16_t or char32_t
>   
BOOST_NO_UNICODE_CHAR_TYPES, perhaps? I'd like the avoid having "0x" in 
the macros, because eventually we'll know what the 'x' is.

> BOOST_NO_EXPLICIT_CVT_OP      // no explicit operator T()
>   
BOOST_NO_EXPLICIT_CONVERSION_OPERATIONS?

> BOOST_NO_DFLT_AND_DEL_FUNCS   // no = default or = delete functions
>   
I suggest that we split these into two macros, even though they came 
from the same proposal.

BOOST_NO_DEFAULT_FUNCTIONS
BOOST_NO_DELETED_FUNCTIONS

> BOOST_NO_CONSTEXPR            // no constexpr
>   

  - Doug