From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-29 22:34:24
Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
> 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.
That's mostly what I've been doing, at least if you count beta compilers
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk