24 Mar
2009
24 Mar
'09
11:52 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
boost config includes BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T.
boost Is there any chance we might see BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T appear in the near future?
Should we reserve the BOOST_NO_* names for broken compilers that fail to correctly support a language or standard library feature? In other words, should these two be named: BOOST_HAS_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T BOOST_HAS_INTRINSIC_INT64_T --Beman