Marshall Clow wrote:
On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:53 AM, John Maddock wrote:
BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_FUNCTIONAL - std lib doesn't have a complete implementation of <functional>, MSVC and gcc/libstdc++ seem to have added all the new features here on mass, so this seems reasonable. BOOST_NO_0X_SMART_PTR - no shared_ptr and unique_ptr. BOOST_NO_0X_ATOMIC_SMART_PTR - no atomic operations on smart pointers. BOOST_NO_0X_ALLOCATOR - no C++0x allocator support (allocator_traits etc).
0x? Shouldn't it be 11 by now?
Um, yes, it's just that we have all these 0X macros already and I'd like to be consistent with existing practice, and don't much fancy changing all the existing ones...
Searching for "BOOST_NO_0X" finds about 500 matches in 87 files, almost all in boost/config and libs/config (in fact, most are in libs/config/test).
If people think this is a good idea, and no one else wants to do it, I can do it this weekend.
I think it is a very good idea to switch to 11, though it should probably be "CPP11" or "CXX11". (Sound familiar?) _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer using std::disclaimer; Dev Tools & Components Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com ________________________________ IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.