Re: [boost] C++0x and MSVC 10

Subject: Re: [boost] C++0x and MSVC 10
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-14 23:54:29

AMDG

Zachary Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>   
>> On 14 February 2010 22:30, Zachary Turner <divisortheory_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>     
>>> It almost appears as if the #else was simply forgotten on the first #if.
>>>  Can't we safely change the first conditional to the following?
>>>       
>> I thought the convention was, for standard features, to just have the
>> _NO_ version, and check for #ifndef if you want it, rather than having
>> to keep both _NO_ and _HAS_ versions of the same thing.
>>     
>
> Possibly, to be honest I'm not familiar with the conventions surrounding
> these sorts of things and I couldn't find much documentation.  The solution
> I came up with was based off of looking at the gcc header file, and noting
> that it does keep _NO_ and _HAS_ versions of the constants, and additionally
> in various header files I still see plenty of references to BOOST_HAS_xxx
> scattered around.
>
> Either way, I guess some consensus needs to be reached, and maybe we should
> change the rest of the codebase to follow it so that all libraries agree on
> the convention.

If I recall correctly...
C++0x features were originally, HAS_*, but we decided that
it should really be NO_* a while back.  The HAS_* versions
are still there for backwards compatibility.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe