27 May
2008
27 May
'08
3:03 p.m.
anthony.ajw@gmail.com wrote:
Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> writes:
Sean Hunt wrote:
Jumping in at this point in the conversation, why not just define the BOOST_NO_* macros and define the BOOST_HAS_* as being !BOOST_NO_*. That way we get both? That's an interesting idea, although perhaps a little to cute. What do others think? Does it add value or just confuse?
Well, for one thing it would mean that those of us who have started to use the BOOST_HAS_ variants won't suddenly find our code broken.
The plan would be to (1) leave the BOOST_HAS_ variants in place, at least for a while, and (2) volunteer to convert to the BOOST_NO_ form for any libraries where the developer would like help. --Beman