Subject: Re: [boost] [config] std::unique_ptr, std::ref detection?
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-01 17:58:47
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> >>> 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
> >>> 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:
> 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.
Are these only internal macros? If these are public, it's possible you'll
break some user code.
Are we only speaking of macros that indicate whether specific C++11
constructs are available upon inclusion of a given header (that has been
added or changed in C++11 relative to C++03)?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk