Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] std::unique_ptr, std::ref detection?
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-01 12:02:03

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:55 PM, John Maddock <boost.regex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I'd prefer not to get too fine grained about this if possible, but are
>>> these the only additions to those headers?  If so how about
>>> BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_MEMORY and BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_FUNCTIONAL which would mirror the
>>> existing macros fairly closely?
>> No, these are not the only additions; <memory> has at least shared_ptr and
>> weak_ptr in C++11, and <functional> has function, bind, mem_fn, hash. But it
>> looks workable enough. I agree that adding a macro for each and every
>> addition would get unwieldy.
> OK, here's what I propose to add unless there are objections about the
> names:
> BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_FUNCTIONAL - std lib doesn't have a complete implementation
> of <functional>, MSVC and gcc/libstdc++ seem to have added all the new
> features here on mass, so this seems reasonable.
> BOOST_NO_0X_SMART_PTR - no shared_ptr and unique_ptr.
> BOOST_NO_0X_ATOMIC_SMART_PTR - no atomic operations on smart pointers.
> BOOST_NO_0X_ALLOCATOR - no C++0x allocator support (allocator_traits etc).

0x? Shouldn't it be 11 by now?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at