Re: [boost] [Boost] [Config] Macros for the absence of a full C++11 <memory> implementation

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