Hi,

I've seen that boost has currently BOOST_NO_STRINGSTREAM; why isn't
there a BOOST_NO_NEW_IOSTREAMS macro instead?

Moreover, I find the section 'Macros that describe defects' in

http://www.boost.org/libs/config/config.htm


misleading because it describes the BOOST_NO_xxx macros as "the
implementation lacks the feature xxx".
As far as I've seen by working at dynamic_bitset this is not true in
general: for instance some of the compilers I've tried had problems
with member template friends (BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS), but
only in some circumstances and, often, not for the syntax of the
declaration per se. So I would like the description to say that boost
renounces the usage of the feature xxx, for the reason that the
configured compiler has problems 'related' to that feature, not that
the feature isn't supported at all. In practice this means that one
has to intend the macros as

BOOST_DOESNT_USE_featurexxx

It's only a different point of view and it affects the documentation
only but I think it's important anyway. It also avoid us to make
incorrect assertions about compiler bugs (we only say that there are
bugs associated with a certain feature, and that therefore the code of
the library takes them into account - in practice, it doesn't use the
feature, but that in theory is not the only option).


What do you think?



Genny.



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