Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Another set of macros to deprecate (and then remove)?
From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-17 07:21:27


On 17.12.2012, at 07:00, Nathan Ridge wrote:

>
> Perhaps the config library authors can confirm whether my speculation
> about the rationale is correct.

My guess would be that in addition to your reasons, it's a matter of implementation.
If standard feature support macros are positive, for the implementation it either means
- having every compiler/stdlib config header define every single feature macro, which is a lot of syntactic overhead (i.e. greater risk of stupid mistakes like forgetting one, slightly more work when adding a new platform, and of course the annoying fact that when adding a new perfectly compliant platform, "do nothing" is not the right thing to do) or
- having a core header that defines every single macro, and then have the specific headers undefine them as needed, which strikes me as needlessly complicated. Also, it means a slight parsing overhead over just not having any code for features that are supported.

Sebastian


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk