Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 09:58 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITERALS // no Unicode literals Grrr... At least one compiler beta is supporting u and U literals, but not U8 literals. Will that vendor be supporting U8 literals before the final release? We don't need to cope with non-released compilers. Good point. The product manager actually thought UTF-8 literals were supporting, so maybe they will appear in the final release.
We can always just define BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITERALS until all three flavors are fully supported. That probably makes more sense.
For every macro, a separate test case .ipp file has to be written and then tested for every compiler. Given the number of new C++0x features, the Boost macros will become unmanageable if they are too fine grained.
Wouldn't it make much sense to define the macros on an 'as needed' basis instead of having a macro for every possible C++0x feature? I.e. for now just define macros for C++0x features already present in existing c++ compilers.
That's mostly what I've been doing, at least if you count beta compilers as "existing". --Beman