On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:29 AM, Marshall Clow wrote:
On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:53 AM, John Maddock wrote:
BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_FUNCTIONAL - std lib doesn't have a complete implementation of <functional>, MSVC and gcc/libstdc++ seem to have added all the new features here on mass, so this seems reasonable. BOOST_NO_0X_SMART_PTR - no shared_ptr and unique_ptr. BOOST_NO_0X_ATOMIC_SMART_PTR - no atomic operations on smart pointers. BOOST_NO_0X_ALLOCATOR - no C++0x allocator support (allocator_traits etc).
0x? Shouldn't it be 11 by now?
Um, yes, it's just that we have all these 0X macros already and I'd like to be consistent with existing practice, and don't much fancy changing all the existing ones…
Searching for "BOOST_NO_0X" finds about 500 matches in 87 files, almost all in boost/config and libs/config (in fact, most are in libs/config/test).
If people think this is a good idea, and no one else wants to do it, I can do it this weekend.
While looking at this, I noticed that we have two macros: BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_INITIALIZER_LIST and BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS There's an old thread from 2009 where the consensus was that "BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS" should be removed in favor of the 0X one. The only library that is using BOOST_NO_INITIALIZER_LISTS is Boost.Random (and some tests in Boost.Config). I think I'll make that change first; unless someone complains. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki