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 18:11:02

On Mar 1, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:

> 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
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> 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)?

Yes, the BOOST_NO_0X macros are C++11 specific (or rather, indicate the absence of C++11 features)

As for BOOTS_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS, people were asking for it to be removed back in 2009:
        http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/config-Deprecate-remove-BOOST-NO-INITIALIZER-LISTS-td2662739.html

Daniel James claimed that he was the only one using it, then.

Opinions? I don't mind doing the cleanup, but I certainly don't want to do it more than once.

-- 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