[config] C++17 macros wanted - Boost - lists.stage.boost.cppalliance.org

newer
[units] Compilation fails on...

[config] C++17 macros wanted

older
[outcome] How to drop the formal...

Tal Lancaster

26 May 2017 26 May '17

6:11 p.m.

I have been adding C++17 features to date_time. There are two config macros, I would like to have: Test for C++17’s constexpr inline feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_CONSTEXPR_INLINE Test for C++17’s structured binding feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCT_BIND

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Show replies by date

Glen Fernandes

26 May 26 May

7:32 p.m.

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Tal Lancaster wrote:

I have been adding C++17 features to date_time. There are two config macros, I would like to have:

Test for C++17’s constexpr inline feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_CONSTEXPR_INLINE Test for C++17’s structured binding feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCT_BIND

How soon do you need these available? (BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCTURED_BINDINGS and BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARABLES seem better to me). Glen

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Andrey Semashev

7:39 p.m.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

(BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCTURED_BINDINGS and BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARABLES seem better to me).

+1

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Tal Lancaster

7:59 p.m.

On May 26, 2017, at 2:32 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Tal Lancaster wrote:

...
I have been adding C++17 features to date_time. There are two config macros, I would like to have:

Test for C++17’s constexpr inline feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_CONSTEXPR_INLINE Test for C++17’s structured binding feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCT_BIND

How soon do you need these available?

(BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCTURED_BINDINGS and BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARABLES seem better to me).

I was picking names that described the officialI usage. I am fine with the name alternate if others feel that it is clearer. I’m not particularly tied to the name. As to the timing. I have started using them in my code changes but I am planning on holding off on any pull requests until something more official is in place. Tal

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Glen Fernandes

31 May 31 May

12:26 p.m.

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Tal Lancaster wrote:

...
On May 26, 2017, at 2:32 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Tal Lancaster wrote:

...
I have been adding C++17 features to date_time. There are two config macros, I would like to have:

Test for C++17’s constexpr inline feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_CONSTEXPR_INLINE Test for C++17’s structured binding feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCT_BIND

How soon do you need these available?

(BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCTURED_BINDINGS and BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARABLES seem better to me).

I was picking names that described the officialI usage. I am fine with the name alternate if others feel that it is clearer. I’m not particularly tied to the name.

As to the timing. I have started using them in my code changes but I am planning on holding off on any pull requests until something more official is in place.

These are now available in Boost.Config: 1. BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCTURED_BINDINGS 2. BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARABLES Glen

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Andrey Semashev

2:06 p.m.

On 05/31/17 15:26, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

...
These are now available in Boost.Config: 1. BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCTURED_BINDINGS 2. BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARABLES

That should be VARIABLES (note the I).

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Glen Fernandes

2:50 p.m.

Yes, it's BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARIABLES. :-) (Misspelled it in the
e-mail; the code has the right name)

Glen

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017, Andrey Semashev via Boost 
wrote:

> On 05/31/17 15:26, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
>
>>
>>> These are now available in Boost.Config:
>>   1. BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCTURED_BINDINGS
>>   2. BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARABLES
>>
>
> That should be VARIABLES (note the I).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman
> /listinfo.cgi/boost
>

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Tal Lancaster

2:52 p.m.

On May 31, 2017, at 7:26 AM, Glen Fernandes wrote:

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Tal Lancaster wrote:

...
On May 26, 2017, at 2:32 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Tal Lancaster wrote:

...
I have been adding C++17 features to date_time. There are two config macros, I would like to have:

Test for C++17’s constexpr inline feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_CONSTEXPR_INLINE Test for C++17’s structured binding feature. Maybe call it something like: BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCT_BIND

How soon do you need these available?

(BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCTURED_BINDINGS and BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARABLES seem better to me).

I was picking names that described the officialI usage. I am fine with the name alternate if others feel that it is clearer. I’m not particularly tied to the name.

As to the timing. I have started using them in my code changes but I am planning on holding off on any pull requests until something more official is in place.

These are now available in Boost.Config: 1. BOOST_NO_CXX17_STRUCTURED_BINDINGS 2. BOOST_NO_CXX17_INLINE_VARABLES

Glen

Thanks!

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

2737

Age (days ago)

2742

Last active (days ago)

Download

7 comments

3 participants

tags

participants (3)

Andrey Semashev
Glen Fernandes
Tal Lancaster