On 11/24/2010 9:00 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
On 11/22/2010 2:40 PM, Daniel James wrote:
On 22 November 2010 14:33, Edward Diener<eldiener@tropicsoft.com> > wrote:
Is this also the intention of Boost in general, that an empty
config.h >> means
a compiler that supports C++03 ?
In general, an empty config.hpp means C++0x. That did seem to be the consensus decision, and I think everyone went into it understanding the consequences. It looks like the decision was made here (only the first few replies are relevant):
In that case Peter Dimov's assumption seems wrong. He is saying that he did not want you to make the changes because an empty config.h should mean the C++ standard, aka C++03.
No, I'm not saying that it _should_ mean C++03, I'm saying that it does mean C++03, and has meant C++03 for years.
Then you obviously disagree with what Daniel James says in his comment above, that an empty config.h means C++0x and that seems to be the consensus decision.
A previously valid (but admittedly rare) use case - using shared_ptr with an empty config.hpp - will be rendered invalid. This is not an assumption, it is a fact.
I am glad it is a fact. In which case the design of the BOOST_NO_ macros which pertain to C++0x seems wrong to me, since an empty config.h would not define any of those macros, thus implying that a compiler with an empty config.h supports these C++0x features.