Subject: Re: [boost] [config] std::unique_ptr, std::ref detection?
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-03 13:08:20
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 1 March 2012 23:34, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.
> <jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > I think the important distinction is
> > "BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS is probably useless as
> > it only indicates compiler support and initializer lists can't really
> > be used without the header."
> > I wasn't sure whether initializer lists required a header, so I agree
> > Daniel that it's probably redundant.
> I was wrong, C++11 added other uses which don't require the header.
> Although I don't think portable code would ever need to take advantage
> of that.
> The situation with the visual c++ 10 beta was that initializer lists
> weren't supported, but the header was present. In that case
> BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS would be defined, but
> BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_INITIALIZER_LISTS would not. A compiled library might
> still want to define methods which take initializer lists so that they
> can be used when linking with a different compiler that does support
> If you look at unordered, it now uses
> BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_INITIALIZER_LISTS in the headers (they support
> std::initializer_list but don't ever create one), but
> BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS for test cases that actually use an
> initializer list.
> But.... it looks like including the header in Visual C++ 10 was
> actually a mistake:
> It's also confusing having the two macros, very easy to get wrong, and
> the potential use cases are pretty dubious.
I'll ultimately defer to your and others' judgements here. Let me just say
that it does sound like an argument can be made to continue to use
BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS (indicating whether the compiler correctly
implements and supports (including header support) initializer lists)
rather than BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_INITIALIZER_LISTS (header is present and...well
who knows what else? should it only be undefined in the former case for
BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS?). The former macro is also more succinct.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk