Re: [boost] [config] Using SD-6 macros

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Using SD-6 macros
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-13 11:27:50

On 6/13/2015 5:31 AM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
> On 6/13/2015 2:22 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>
>> I can see SD-6 only as a helper tool for libraries like Boost.Config and
>> not as an alternative. We had various version and feature checks in
>> Boost.Config for years, it worked wonderfully and I don't see why it
>> would break for the existing compilers we support. Future compilers may
>> add features that are currently missing, and we will have to update
>> Boost.Config accordingly, whether the compilers use SD-6, misuse it or
>> not use it at all.
>
> 2c:
>
> For each feature test, we would need both (e.g.) __cpp_constexpr and
> __cpp_constexpr_and_implemented_correctly.  The chance of just (e.g.)
> __cpp_constexpr being reliable enough is low, IMO, particularly for
> non-trivial feature use (e.g. Boost).

What you are saying is that we can use SD-6 but that we shouldn't trust 
that whoever implements it is doing it correctly.