Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T

Subject: Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-24 08:05:59

> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> boost config includes BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T.
>>
>> boost Is there any chance we might see BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T
>> appear in the near future?
>
> Should we reserve the BOOST_NO_* names for broken compilers that fail
> to correctly support a language or standard library feature?

Yes.

> In other words, should these two be named:
>
>    BOOST_HAS_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T
>    BOOST_HAS_INTRINSIC_INT64_T

Well... last I looked an intrinsic wchar_t (ie not a typedef for an int 
type) *was* a std feature :-)

As for other one, we already have:

BOOST_NO_INT64_T - if there is no std::int64_t defined in boost/cstdint.hpp, 
and
BOOST_NO_INTEGRAL_INT64_T - if std::int64_t can not be used in integral 
constant expressions.

Both are defined in cstdint.hpp BTW, and I believe this adequately covers 
this area, unless I'm missing something?

John.