On Dec 7, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr." <jeffrey.hellrung@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Daniel Russel <drussel@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I think some individuals here (I'd put myself in that camp) are opposed to injecting anything into the global namespace if it can be helped, and here it certainly can be helped. So if we add a nullptr emulation in Boost, it's going to have to be paired with a using macro,
a
different name (i.e., boost::nullptr_), or both. If no one will use this utility given the latter imperfections, I'm fine with just dropping the proposal altogether and everyone can go back to using NULL or C++11. Just to put in my vote for not putting anything in the global namespace but providing a "BOOST_USING_NULLPTR" macro. We keep our nullptr emulation in our library namespace too and would gladly switch to a boost one.
We've already got: BOOST_NO_CXX11_NULLPTR
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_52_0/libs/config/doc/html/boost_config/boost...
Yes, the definition of BOOST_USING_NULLPTR depends on whether BOOST_NO_CXX11_NULLPTR is defined :) It's just a convenience macro equivalent to
#ifndef BOOST_NO_CX11_NULLPTR using ::boost::nullptr; #endif
That was what I wanted to be sure of; that we didn't introduce (yet) another config macro when we already had one. -- 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