On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com>wrote:
AMDG
Zachary Turner wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14 February 2010 22:30, Zachary Turner <divisortheory@gmail.com> wrote:
It almost appears as if the #else was simply forgotten on the first #if. Can't we safely change the first conditional to the following?
I thought the convention was, for standard features, to just have the _NO_ version, and check for #ifndef if you want it, rather than having to keep both _NO_ and _HAS_ versions of the same thing.
Possibly, to be honest I'm not familiar with the conventions surrounding these sorts of things and I couldn't find much documentation. The solution I came up with was based off of looking at the gcc header file, and noting that it does keep _NO_ and _HAS_ versions of the constants, and additionally in various header files I still see plenty of references to BOOST_HAS_xxx scattered around.
Either way, I guess some consensus needs to be reached, and maybe we should change the rest of the codebase to follow it so that all libraries agree on the convention.
If I recall correctly... C++0x features were originally, HAS_*, but we decided that it should really be NO_* a while back. The HAS_* versions are still there for backwards compatibility.
Fair enough. What's the best way to handle code that is only using the HAS_ version and I guess hasn't been updated to use the NO_ version? See, for example, intrusive_ptr's move constructor. I guess the options are either: a) Make sure all preprocessor checks over the entire code base are changed to (HAS_ || !NO_) or (NO_ || !HAS_) depending on the statement, or b) Move one header up from the compiler specific headers, and then after the correct compiler-specific header has been included, check for the occurrence of every NO_, and set every corresponding HAS_ Zach