From: Beman Dawes
Then maybe at one go add BOOST_OVERRIDE and BOOST_FINAL? (note that MSVC supports them since VS 2005 but uses sealed rather than final, making the macros even more desirable for better portability).
Care to submit patches?
OK, but one thing is unclear to me. Along with BOOST_OVERRIDE and BOOST_FINAL, the corresponding BOOST_NO_<feature> macro(s) should be provided. There are several possibilities: - provide BOOST_NO_VIRT_SPECIFIERS, - provide BOOST_NO_OVERRIDE_FINAL (or BOOST_NO_OVERRIDE_FINAL_VIRT_SPECIFIERS), - provide BOOST_NO_OVERRIDE and BOOST_NO_FINAL (or BOOST_NO_OVERRIDE_VIRT_SPECIFIER and BOOST_NO_FINAL_VIRT_SPECIFIER). BOOST_NO_VIRT_SPECIFIERS has the problem that if a future C++ revision adds more specifiers (i.e., explicit/new) then the meaning will become ambiguous. BOOST_NO_OVERRIDE_FINAL is better in this respect, but it has another problem that applies to BOOST_NO_VIRT_SPECIFIERS as well: currently there are compilers (MSVC >= 8.0) supporting override but not final (they use sealed keyword instead). On the other hand, BOOST_NO_OVERRIDE and BOOST_NO_FINAL may be a bit too fine-grained. What do you and the others think? Best regards, Robert