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?
Yes.
In other words, should these two be named:
BOOST_HAS_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T BOOST_HAS_INTRINSIC_INT64_T
Well... last I looked an intrinsic wchar_t (ie not a typedef for an int type) *was* a std feature :-) As for other one, we already have: BOOST_NO_INT64_T - if there is no std::int64_t defined in boost/cstdint.hpp, and BOOST_NO_INTEGRAL_INT64_T - if std::int64_t can not be used in integral constant expressions. Both are defined in cstdint.hpp BTW, and I believe this adequately covers this area, unless I'm missing something? John.