26 May
2008
26 May
'08
8 a.m.
Beman Dawes wrote:
Yes. Doug and I had a discussion of this, and decided that in the long run we were better off with the BOOST_NO_* approach.
That's fine with me too.
Also, a C++03 workaround for the lack of the C++0x keyword "constexpr" is to simply omit it. Should we have a BOOST_CONSTEXPR macro defined as "constexpr" for platforms that support constexpr, otherwise as null?
That's not a bad idea. I wonder whether it might not be better just to
#define constexpr
in that case, and use that symbol.
I thought of that, and decided it wasn't a good idea to define a symbol that non-boost code might also be using and/or redefining. But that's only a weak opinion, and I'm open to reconsidering it. What do others think?
BOOST_CONSTEXP maybe? John.