Re: [PATCH] C++11 keyword fallback

[Paul Eggert]

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.