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: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-07 00:01:09

> 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?

The latter is preferable; e.g. BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALIGN (or a more
appropriate identifier) indicating the absence of std::align. It just
felt a little wrong to desire a macro for just one function though.

Glen