Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Add BOOST_NO_RANGE_BASED_FOR macro?
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-10 04:14:51
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]>
> >> Here's a patch vs. the trunk which renames all the macros in the table
> >> "Macros that describe C++11 features not supported" (with the notable
> >> exception of BOOST_NO_LONG_LONG) to have consistent names.
> >> For example:
> >> BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS --> BOOST_NO_CXX11_VARIADIC_MACROS
> >> All the old names are then #defined to be the same as the new names;
> >> All the code and tests in config has been updated to use the new names.
> >> All the old names have been put into the "Boost Deprecated Macros"
> >> The goal here is no changes to client code (including code in boost
> >> outside of the config library).
> >> This seems to work fine on my system (Mac with gcc and clang)
> >> Now Beman can define "BOOST_NO_CXX11_RANGE_BASED_FOR" and it will match
> >> the style with other macros.
> >> Comments?
> > Why, again, are we preferring inserting CXX11 versus not? I.e., why is
> > BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES better than BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFERENCES?
> Because when the C++ committee puts out a new standard, and changes how
> rvalue references work, we can then define a new flag
> BOOST_NO_CXX17_RVALUE_REFERENCES, and it will be easy to explain to
> everyone what the differences are.
That makes sense.
I guess no one has strong opposition against the CXX11 macro additions?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk