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

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-27 11:47:16

anthony.ajw_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> 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.

Personally I'd rather have "one true macro" for each feature or defect, if 
necessary it's not hard to fix up the old code is it (and no I'm not 
expecting *you* to make that change)?  Or are you using the C++0x macros in 
non-Boost code?

Regards, John.