Re: [boost] [config] Add BOOST_NO_RANGE_BASED_FOR macro?

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Add BOOST_NO_RANGE_BASED_FOR macro?
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-09 14:37:30

On Jul 9, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:

>> 2) If you have to add a config flag, please match the CXX11 naming scheme and call it something like
>> BOOST_NO_CXX11_RANGE_BASED_FOR
> 
> We are using the BOOST_NO_CXX11_ scheme for header files only. None of
> the 28 feature macros we already have use a BOOST_NO_CXX11_ prefix.
> 
> Seehttp://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_50_0/libs/config/doc/html/boost_config/boost_macro_reference.html#boost_config.boost_macro_reference.macros_that_describe_c__11_features_not_supported

Well, shame on us.

I could argue about
        BOOST_NO_CXX11_SMART_PTR
        BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR
        BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC_SMART_PTR

but those are "related to" header files.

IM(NS)HO, these should all be BOOST_NO_CXX11 macros.
For example, BOOST_NO_NULLPTR should be BOOST_NO_CXX11_NULLPTR

(but we're not going to change that today)

-- 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