"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
anthony.ajw@gmail.com wrote:
That's an interesting idea, although perhaps a little to cute. What do others think? Does it add value or just confuse?
Well, for one thing it would mean that those of us who have started to use the BOOST_HAS_ variants won't suddenly find our code broken.
Personally I'd rather have "one true macro" for each feature or defect, if necessary it's not hard to fix up the old code is it (and no I'm not expecting *you* to make that change)? Or are you using the C++0x macros in non-Boost code?
No it's not hard to do the fixes, and I'm fine with doing it myself for boost.thread. However, I still think it's preferable to have both options at least for a while to give people a chance to switch (as per Beman's suggestion). And finally, yes, I do use the boost config macros outside boost. It's clearer to use BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS than the equivalent "is this GCC in C++0x mode" test, and it'll still work when other vendors ship compilers with rvalue-ref support (assuming boost keeps track). How about for 1.36.0 we provide both, and for 1.37.0 we drop the HAS variants? This gives people (both within boost and without) a full boost release to make the switch. Anthony -- Anthony Williams | Just Software Solutions Ltd Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL