From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-25 09:48:24
on Sun May 25 2008, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
> There was some past discussion of changing the C++0x BOOST_HAS_* macros
> to BOOST_NO_*. Several participants thought that was better for the long
> run. Who needs to do what to make this happen?
IIRC the convention is BOOST_HAS_* when it's describing a nonstandard
feature and BOOST_NO_* when it's describing a standard feature that is
not supported be the compiler. In other words, IIUC, BOOST_NO_* is
reserved for describing nonconformances.
> The motivation for asking is that I'm starting to update some Boost code
> that could benefit from C++0x features and so would like to start using
> these macros.
of course, the fact that nonstandard features are now becoming standard
makes things somewhat awkward.
> Also, a C++03 workaround for the lack of the C++0x keyword "constexpr"
> is to simply omit it. Should we have a BOOST_CONSTEXPR macro defined as
> "constexpr" for platforms that support constexpr, otherwise as null?
That's not a bad idea. I wonder whether it might not be better just to
#define constexpr
in that case, and use that symbol.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com