Subject: Re: [boost] [config] std::unique_ptr, std::ref detection?
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-02 19:37:14
On Mar 2, 2012, at 1:43 AM, John Maddock wrote:
>> 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.
> Suggest you "undocument" BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS, remove the test in Boost.Config plus any reference to it in the config/compiler/*.hpp headers but leave it conditionally defined in boost/config/suffix.hpp as:
> #if defined(BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_INITIALIZER_LIST) && !defined(BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS)
> #define BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS
> Then any legacy code out there that's using it won't be broken.
I did all this, and added a section in the config docs called "Deprecated Macros"
Please take a look and let me know what I did wrong.
> Same procedure would apply to renaming the *_C0X_* macros: make sure the old deprecated ones are conditionally set in suffix.hpp so that legacy code isn't broken - it also means we can merge Boost.Config to release without worrying about the Boost libraries that depend upon it.
> I guess if we were really tidying up, then a nicely commented section in suffix.hpp for deprecated macros would be nice (there are a few in there already - just don't ask me which ones!).
Right. That's next. ;-)
Since no one has piped up with a preference for CPP vs. CXX, I guess I'll choose. (Fires up the dice)
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk