10 Jul 2012 02:15
Re: [config] Add BOOST_NO_RANGE_BASED_FOR macro?
Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jeffrey.hellrung <at> gmail.com>
2012-07-10 00:15:12 GMT
2012-07-10 00:15:12 GMT
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists <at> gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Marshall Clow wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Beman Dawes wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM, John Maddock <boost.regex <at> virgin.net> > wrote: > >>>> 2) If you have to add a config flag, please match the CXX11 naming > scheme > >>>> and call it something like > >>>> BOOST_NO_CXX11_RANGE_BASED_FOR > >>> > >>> > >>> +1 for that name. > >> > >> I really don't want to change naming schemes this far into it. If we > >> go down that road, we should also rename the 28 Macros that don't use > >> that scheme. > >> > >> Are you suggesting we should just byte the bullet and change them all? > > > > Yes, I am. > > > > I suggest that we do the same thing that I did for 1.50 and all the > BOOST_NO_0X_* macros. > > Define new ones, make the old ones have the same value as the new ones, > and then, down the road, kill off the old ones. > > > > See trunk/boost/config/suffix.hpp. > > > > I even think that renaming all the macros (while keeping the old names > around; not necessarily changing client code) is worth doing for 1.51. > > (Putting his money where his mouth is) > > Here's a patch vs. the trunk which renames all the macros in the table > "Macros that describe C++11 features not supported" (with the notable > exception of BOOST_NO_LONG_LONG) to have consistent names. > For example: > BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS --> BOOST_NO_CXX11_VARIADIC_MACROS > > All the old names are then #defined to be the same as the new names; > All the code and tests in config has been updated to use the new names. > All the old names have been put into the "Boost Deprecated Macros" table. > > The goal here is no changes to client code (including code in boost > outside of the config library). > This seems to work fine on my system (Mac with gcc and clang) > > Now Beman can define "BOOST_NO_CXX11_RANGE_BASED_FOR" and it will match > the style with other macros. > > Comments? Why, again, are we preferring inserting CXX11 versus not? I.e., why is BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES better than BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFERENCES? - Jeff _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost