Subject: Re: [boost] [C++0x] More config macros needed
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-13 08:49:53
Beman Dawes wrote:
On Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:16 PM
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Stewart, Robert
> <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Beman Dawes wrote:
> > On Monday, May 11, 2009 10:15 PM
> >> Thus we need more config macros, particularly those aimed at the
> >> standard library. A possible approach:
> >> BOOST_NO_CONCEPTS // needed to tell if headers have been
> >> conceptized
> >> BOOST_NO_*_HDR // for each new C++0x header; * is
> >> name of header
> >> For example, BOOST_NO_CHRONO_HDR is defined unless header
> >> <chrono> is present.
> > I noticed the need for such macros, too, at BoostCon. I
> was thinking we need one for each feature.
> We've already got these:
> So we are filling in some of the missing pieces rather than starting
> from scratch.
I never got far enough to look for the config macros you listed; I just noticed that they'd be needed. I'm glad those are available.
> > The only reason I can think of to provide one for each
> header is so that Boost headers can include standard headers
> rather than compatibility code. Is that what you had in mind?
> Yes. Suppliers seem to be adding C++0x library components on a header
> by header basis, rather than waiting until they have a full set and
> then supplying them all at once. Thus the need to have macros for each
> > If so, then the header macros should only be undefined
> when the corresponding header is complete.
> The problem with waiting for a header to be totally complete means
> waiting a long time. For example, several vendors are already, or will
> soon be, shipping a number of new C++0x headers. But their
> implementations aren't "complete" because they don't have concepts
> yet. The headers are perfectly usable, however, so there is no reason
> not to take advantage of them now. For some of these compilers we many
> have to wait several years before concepts become available, and the
> headers become "complete".
Yes, concepts are unique in coming very late to the party. I agree with your idea, so long as the header macros don't indicate a header is present with any other deficiency or the logic to determine if needed functionality is present will get complicated.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk