Re: [boost] [config] std::unique_ptr, std::ref detection?

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] std::unique_ptr, std::ref detection?
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-01 17:30:55

On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:29 AM, Marshall Clow wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:53 AM, John Maddock wrote:
> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Um, yes, it's just that we have all these 0X macros already and I'd like to be consistent with existing practice, and don't much fancy changing all the existing ones…
> 
> Searching for "BOOST_NO_0X" finds about 500 matches in 87 files, almost all in boost/config and libs/config (in fact, most are in libs/config/test).
> 
> If people think this is a good idea, and no one else wants to do it, I can do it this weekend.

While looking at this, I noticed that we have two macros:
                BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_INITIALIZER_LIST
and		BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS

There's an old thread from 2009 where the consensus was that "BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS" should be removed in favor of the 0X one.

The only library that is using BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS is Boost.Random (and some tests in Boost.Config).

I think I'll make that change first; unless someone complains.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Idio Software   <mailto:mclow.lists_at_[hidden]>

A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
        -- Yu Suzuki