John Maddock wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Yes. Doug and I had a discussion of this, and decided that in the long run we were better off with the BOOST_NO_* approach.
That's fine with me too.
OK, I propose to add the following: // Rename versions some current BOOST_HAS_* macros to: BOOST_NO_CONCEPTS BOOST_NO_DECLTYPE BOOST_NO_LONG_LONG BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFS BOOST_NO_STATIC_ASSERT BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_TMPL // New macros: BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS // no enum class BOOST_NO_RAW_LITS // no raw character or string literals BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITS // no Unicode literals BOOST_NO_OX_CHAR_TYPES // no char16_t or char32_t BOOST_NO_EXPLICIT_CVT_OP // no explicit operator T() BOOST_NO_DFLT_AND_DEL_FUNCS // no = default or = delete functions BOOST_NO_CONSTEXPR // no constexpr Comments or suggestions? --Beman