Subject: Re: [boost] [result_of] Allow result_of to work with C++11 lambdas
From: Nathan Crookston (nathan.crookston_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-10 14:57:34
Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Le 10/04/13 19:39, Nathan Crookston a écrit :
> I think it would be uncommon for the user to define those macros. Here's a
>> situation where it may be useful:
>> I have a library which I claim supports VC9 and Clang. I do my
>> with clang 3.2, and rely on some form of automated testing to verify it
>> works with MSVC. I may commonly forget to add result_type or a nested
>> struct to my functors, since clang uses decltype. After the Nth time, I
>> may, during my own development, #define BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_TR1, just so
>> that I'm not continually breaking the VC9 build.
>> So again, I think it's uncommon.
> Do you mean that if a library author develops and tests with both
> compilers an even more at once he would need to define
> BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_TR1 from the beginning even if defining
> BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_DECTYPE works better on some compilers? But the library
> author cannot know how the users would define their Functors so it can not
> define these macros.
No, I don't mean that. I mean the library author may choose to do that
during development, just to avoid writing code that can't be used with a
less capable compiler. In my mind, it's like enabling certain warnings on
MSVC so that my code is more likely portable to g++ later.
I think most people should (and will) leave the macros alone, so the best
variant is detected for their platform.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk