Re: [boost] [Config] Macros for the absence of a full C++11 <memory> implementation

Subject: Re: [boost] [Config] Macros for the absence of a full C++11 <memory> implementation
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-06 08:36:47

> Macros to determine the availability of C++11 functions in <memory>
> like std::align would be useful to me.
>
> (I know that declaration begs the inquiry "What conforming code would
> you write if std::align is not present?" but that is separate
> e-mail...)
>
> Would a BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_MEMORY be generally useful?

Perhaps, we currently have <memory> broken up into chunks for 
config-testing as a lot of non-connected things were added for C++11:

BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR
BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC_SMART_PTR
BOOST_NO_CXX11_SMART_PTR

But as you've noticed, those don't cover the whole thing.  So I guess 
the question is do you really want a macro for a *fully* conforming 
<memory> or another test for a new subset?

John.