From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-24 06:52:40
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> I created the new category BOOST_CXX0X_* to avoid the question
> entirely :)
Understood.
> I really don't like BOOST_HAS_*, because that's only for optional
> features. C++0x isn't optional; it's a different standard.
Except it's not a final std yet?
> Alisdair's idea of using BOOST_NO_* (with a big #define header,
> followed
> by undefs for compilers) is intruiging... I'd be okay with that.
>
> I'll do whatever John asks :)
Oooo, power :-)
OK there are a couple of outstanding issues:
* We need test cases for the new macros.
* The config-tools (the configure script and the small generator program
under libs/config/tools that updates the test driver and
config_test.cpp+config_info.cpp) assume that the macros are named BOOST_NO_*
or BOOST_HAS_HAS_*, without that they don't work :-(
The general proceedure for new macros is documented here:
http://www.boost.org/libs/config/config.htm#defect_guidelines
So could you either use BOOST_HAS_* or else modify the configure.in script
and the generate.cpp program to do the right thing?
Many thanks,
John.