Douglas Gregor wrote:
I created the new category BOOST_CXX0X_* to avoid the question entirely :)
Understood.
I really don't like BOOST_HAS_*, because that's only for optional features. C++0x isn't optional; it's a different standard.
Except it's not a final std yet?
Alisdair's idea of using BOOST_NO_* (with a big #define header, followed by undefs for compilers) is intruiging... I'd be okay with that.
I'll do whatever John asks :)
Oooo, power :-) OK there are a couple of outstanding issues: * We need test cases for the new macros. * The config-tools (the configure script and the small generator program under libs/config/tools that updates the test driver and config_test.cpp+config_info.cpp) assume that the macros are named BOOST_NO_* or BOOST_HAS_HAS_*, without that they don't work :-( The general proceedure for new macros is documented here: http://www.boost.org/libs/config/config.htm#defect_guidelines So could you either use BOOST_HAS_* or else modify the configure.in script and the generate.cpp program to do the right thing? Many thanks, John.