Beman Dawes wrote:
OK, I propose to add the following:
// Rename versions some current BOOST_HAS_* macros to:
BOOST_NO_CONCEPTS BOOST_NO_DECLTYPE BOOST_NO_LONG_LONG BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFS BOOST_NO_STATIC_ASSERT BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_TMPL
// New macros:
BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS // no enum class BOOST_NO_RAW_LITS // no raw character or string literals BOOST_NO_UNICODE_LITS // no Unicode literals BOOST_NO_OX_CHAR_TYPES // no char16_t or char32_t BOOST_NO_EXPLICIT_CVT_OP // no explicit operator T() BOOST_NO_DFLT_AND_DEL_FUNCS // no = default or = delete functions BOOST_NO_CONSTEXPR // no constexpr
Comments or suggestions?
--Beman
Jumping in at this point in the conversation, why not just define the BOOST_NO_* macros and define the BOOST_HAS_* as being !BOOST_NO_*. That way we get both? I know that eventually people will want to remove one or the other, but we could introduce a backwards-compatibility header that triggers a deprecation warning or something when it comes to that. Sean Hunt