From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-29 12:00:02
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 09:58 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>>> BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITERALS // no Unicode literals
>>> Grrr... At least one compiler beta is supporting u and U literals, but
>>> not U8 literals.
>> Will that vendor be supporting U8 literals before the final release? We
>> don't need to cope with non-released compilers.
> Good point. The product manager actually thought UTF-8 literals were
> supporting, so maybe they will appear in the final release.
> We can always just define BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITERALS until all three
> flavors are fully supported. That probably makes more sense.
> For every macro, a separate test case .ipp file has to be written and
> then tested for every compiler. Given the number of new C++0x features,
> the Boost macros will become unmanageable if they are too fine grained.
Wouldn't it make much sense to define the macros on an 'as needed'
basis instead of having a macro for every possible C++0x feature? I.e.
for now just define macros for C++0x features already present in
existing c++ compilers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk