Re: [config] Add BOOST_NO_RANGE_BASED_FOR macro?

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists <at> gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
>
> Because when the C++ committee puts out a new standard, and changes how
> rvalue references work, we can then define a new flag
> BOOST_NO_CXX17_RVALUE_REFERENCES, and it will be easy to explain to
> everyone what the differences are.
>

That makes sense.

I guess no one has strong opposition against the CXX11 macro additions?

- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost