AlisdairM wrote:
Recently there was some discussion about adding config support for C++0x features.
The attached test would pass for compilers implementing Core Issue 106 - reference collapsing.
There are a couple of associated issues:
Is this our preferred naming convention?
Personally I'm easy on this, Doug has already started some BOOST_CXX0X macros so I guess we should continue the trend. Which reminds me, we still need test cases for Doug's new macros!
Does the config generating script need updating to support it?
Either we need to update the management scripts, or call the filename boost_has_XXXX irrespective of the actual macro name and it will do the right thing. If this is going to be a trend, might be better to update the scripts. John.