From: Anthony Williams (anthony.ajw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-27 12:16:14
"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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?
No it's not hard to do the fixes, and I'm fine with doing it myself
However, I still think it's preferable to have both options at least
for a while to give people a chance to switch (as per Beman's
And finally, yes, I do use the boost config macros outside boost. It's
clearer to use BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS than the equivalent "is this GCC
in C++0x mode" test, and it'll still work when other vendors ship
compilers with rvalue-ref support (assuming boost keeps track).
How about for 1.36.0 we provide both, and for 1.37.0 we drop the HAS
variants? This gives people (both within boost and without) a full
boost release to make the switch.
-- 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk