On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 09:34 +0000, John Maddock wrote:
As library maintainer John Maddoc should get the final call, but my preference would be BOOST_NO_FEATURE forms. It should be fairly easy to create a single header that all compiler configs can use, and then selectively undef features in the compiler config file itself as new features are implemented.
It's a tricky one this: normally we would use BOOST_HAS_WHATEVER since these features aren't std yet, however as you say, they will be soon. So I could go either way. The names should probably be either BOOST_HAS_WHATEVER or BOOST_NO_WHATEVER though so it's clear what we're talking about!
I created the new category BOOST_CXX0X_* to avoid the question entirely :) I really don't like BOOST_HAS_*, because that's only for optional features. C++0x isn't optional; it's a different standard. Alisdair's idea of using BOOST_NO_* (with a big #define header, followed by undefs for compilers) is intruiging... I'd be okay with that. I'll do whatever John asks :) Cheers, Doug