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