On Dec 14, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Steve M. Robbins <steve@sumost.ca> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 07:53:06AM -0800, Marshall Clow wrote:
There are a set of macros in Boost.config that describe "features that are not required by the C++ standard"
Some of these features have been incorporated into C++11.
I propose that we retire these macros, and have people use the shiny C++11 versions.
In particular: BOOST_HAS_STATIC_ASSERT should be ! BOOST_NO_CXX11_ASSERT
I'm curious why Boost is changing from a positive macro "system has feature X" to a negative one. Of the two options:
#ifdef BOOST_HAS_X ...
or
#ifndef BOOST_NO_X ...
I personally find the former much easier to read and the latter double-negative version awkward enough to be error prone. Am I alone in this opinion?
Here's my understanding, based on reading the docs at: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_52_0/libs/config/doc/html/boost_config/boost... For things that are in the standard, we note their absence. For example: BOOST_NO_STDC_NAMESPACE and BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES For optional (extra?) language/library features, we note their presence BOOST_HAS_TR1 or BOOST_HAS_SGI_TYPE_TRAITS The macros that I am proposing deprecating were once "extra" language/library features, but have become part of the C++11 standard, and already have equivalents of the BOOST_NO_XXX variety. I'd really rather not have two different macros that describe the same thing. Besides, no one is using them in boost, anyway ;-) -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki