Doug Gregor wrote:
On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
In another thread, Doug Gregor wrote:
The other issue is that it would be great to test gcc-4.3 in C++0x mode (-std=gnu++0x) as well as C++98 mode. Then we can start taking advantage of some of the 0x features. Yes, and some other compilers are also starting to add C++0x features.
Has there been any discussion as to how Boost.Config is going to report availability or not of C++0x features? That would seem to be the first step in what promises to be a long, winding, but *very* interesting and productive path.
I started this discussion a while ago:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/11/113534.php
Boost 1.35.0 already contains some macros for C++0x features available now, e.g., BOOST_HAS_STATIC_ASSERT (used by boost/static_assert.hpp), BOOST_HAS_VARIADIC_TMPL, BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS, and BOOST_HAS_DECLTYPE. They have their own section of the Boost.Config documentation ("Macros that describe C++0x Features"), and I believe that accurately reflect the capabilities of released compilers.
Ah! Thanks! ...pause while I read that thread... There was some discussion of making the macros negative; BOOST_NO_STATIC_ASSERT or possibly BOOST_NO_0X_STATIC_ASSERT. That seems both better from the maintenance standpoint, and more in line with our current practice. Has a final decision been made on this? --Beman
I'm hoping that my BoostCon tutorial on C++0x and Dan & Joel's Fusion0x tutorial will spur some interest in updating Boost libraries with C++0x support.
- Doug _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost