On 13.06.2015 17:10, Edward Diener wrote:
On 6/13/2015 5:22 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 13.06.2015 05:26, Edward Diener wrote:
On 6/12/2015 1:05 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
All __cpp_lib macros have an associated header, although I don't know if we currently have Boost.Config equivalents for any of them.
I can see them but they are all C++14 features. Are we really objecting to including a particular standard library header in order to test for the existence of the equivalent SD-6 macro ?
Yes, that would be the objection from my side, at least. I don't want to include a whole std header to check for a single feature that may be implemented in it. And I want Boost.Config to include most of STL even less.
And the rationale for this is what ? Compile-time computer cycles ?
Yes.