On 02/02/2013 06:01 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: > The attached patch introduces three macros: > AC_CXX_CONSTEXPR > AC_CXX_FINAL > AC_CXX_NULLPTR > which behave like AC_C_CONST et al but are for the new > C++11 constextr, final and nullptr keywords. Sorry, I don't know C++, so I'm not really qualified to judge the utility of these macros or of Miles's qualms about them, but would his comments be addressed by Autoconf macros that cause config.h to #define HAVE_CONSTEXPR rather than #defining constexpr, etc.? Or would that just be too awkward? I guess I don't know the usage scenario here. > Would including macros such as AC_CXX_MEMORY, AC_CXX_TUPLE, > AC_CXX_REGEX etc. be acceptable? Is the pattern the same for all these? If so, it sounds like it'd be better to have one macro AC_CXX_STD and invoke it via AC_CXX_STD([memory]), AC_CXX_STD([tuple]), etc. Even if there are slight differences it still may be better to have one "smart" macro rather than lots of macros with repetitive innards. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
