Re: [boost] [C++0x] The cpp0x branch has been merged into trunk

Subject: Re: [boost] [C++0x] The cpp0x branch has been merged into trunk
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-16 12:05:33

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Andrey Semashev
<andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Bo Persson <bop_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Andrey Semashev
>>>>> <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a macro that shows if the "auto" keyword has C++0x
>>>>>> meaning?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not yet.  Care to submit one?
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions for the naming? BOOST_NO_AUTO_DECLARATIONS?
>>>> BOOST_NO_AUTO_MULTIDECLARATIONS?
>>>>
>>>>> Do any compilers support 0x auto? GCC 4.4 is supposed to support 0x
>>>>> auto (at least partially), but won't ship until summer IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I'm too aware only of GCC 4.4, but it's a sufficient precedent.
>>>
>>> VS2010 is another one, with a ship date later than this summer but
>>> reasonably before 2010.
>>
>> Ah! I'd forgotten VS2010 has C++0x auto support.
>
> The macros went into trunk at revision 51733. I also enabled several 0x
> features for VS2010, as the configuration tests seem to pass on CTP version.

Hum... VS2010 changes may not be the best idea yet. My understanding
that when the beta ships the C++0x features will almost certainly be
different from the set in the CTP release, which was very preliminary.
Not to mention changes between beta and release.

With Borland/Godegear we held off config changes until the product
actually shipped. And that was a good thing as they ended up pulling
features at the last minute because of reliability concerns.

--Beman