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

From: Douglas Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-27 09:58:34

Beman Dawes wrote:
> 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?
>   
I think it just confuses the issue and doubles the number of macros a 
developer has to think about.

  - Doug