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

Subject: Re: [boost] C++0x and MSVC 10
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-16 03:24:02

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zachary Turner" <divisortheory_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] C++0x and MSVC 10

> 
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Daniel James <daniel_james_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> 
>> On 15 February 2010 23:40, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > If there is a plan to remove the deprecated froms soon, I agree. When the
>> deprecated forms will be removed?
>>
>> Before we can consider removing the old macros, we have to update all
>> the places where they're used in boost.
> 
> 
> The entire list of macros that need to be deprecated should be as follows.
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, it was a little tricky finding all of
> these.
> 
> BOOST_HAS_DECLTYPE   [proto]
> BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFERENCES   [interprocess, smart_ptr, thread, unordered]
> BOOST_HAS_STATIC_ASSERT   [static_assert]
> BOOST_HAS_CONCEPTS     [xpressive]
> BOOST_HAS_VARIADIC_TMPL   [smart_ptr, unordered, interprocess, proto]
> 
> 
> Many more _HAS_ macros are defined in the various compiler config files but
> never referenced.  Obviously those should be eliminated too.

As concepts are not on the standard proposal we should let tas _HAS_.

BTW, is there a  macro to know if the compiler supports macros with variable arguments? Something like
BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS  

Best,
Vicente