On 3 March 2012 18:08, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jeffrey.hellrung@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll ultimately defer to your and others' judgements here. Let me just say that it does sound like an argument can be made to continue to use BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS (indicating whether the compiler correctly implements and supports (including header support) initializer lists) rather than BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_INITIALIZER_LISTS (header is present and...well who knows what else? should it only be undefined in the former case for BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS?). The former macro is also more succinct.
Not really my decision, but for the most part we are only concerned with the header. The macro will usually be used to determine the interface, not the implementation. We generally wouldn't write the following, as it's easier and less error prone to write just the C++03 implementation. void foo() { #if defined(BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS) // C++03 implementation #else // C++11 implementation using initializer lists #endif }