Boost - Dev mailing list wrote
I like BOOST_NO_FEATURE for features just outright removed.
Removal probably doesn't require a C++ standard version in the macro since its effects are the same even if it happens many times over, for some reason. (e.g. If std::exchange was removed in C++20, then added back in C++2y, then removed in C++2z, there would be no difference between BOOST_CXX20_REMOVED_STD_EXCHANGE and BOOST_CXX2Z_REMOVED_STD_EXCHANGE.)
Glen
+1. But it would also have exactly the same effect as BOOST_NO_CXX14_STD_EXCHANGE, so perhaps that could also be used instead of BOOST_NO_STD_EXCHANGE. Marcel -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/config-What-to-call-macros-to-indicate-de... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.