Is there any official, or inofficial, #defines for when a compiler is Cpp0x compliant? Even better, for specific Cpp0x functionality (~#cpp0xlambda, #cpp0xrvalue etc)?
(Haven't found anything about this on the net)
+13
A:
For C++03 according to 16.8/1 (Predefined macro names):
The name
__cplusplusis defined to the value 199711L when compiling a C++ translation unit.
For C++0x draft n2857 according to 16.8/1 (Predefined macro names):
The name
__cplusplusis defined to the value [tbd] when compiling a C++ translation unit.
Kirill V. Lyadvinsky
2009-11-06 09:07:52
It is reaonable to expect this to be a number > `200911L` but < `201012L`
MSalters
2009-11-06 09:31:53
No #defines for specific functionality?
Viktor Sehr
2009-11-06 10:45:41
Defines for specific functionality could be defined by implementation. Standard doesn't have such defines.
Kirill V. Lyadvinsky
2009-11-06 11:04:34
@Viktor Sehr: Either a compiler implement the standard or not, there is nothing in-between. __cplusplus may not be set to the predefined value if the full standard isn't implemented.
dalle
2009-11-19 10:06:17
`201012L`? You're optimistic. :)
Roger Pate
2009-12-29 18:37:02
+6
A:
Bjarne's C++0x FAQ says:
__cplusplusIn C++0x the macro
__cpluspluswill be set to a value that differs from (is greater than) the current199711L.
Mark Rushakoff
2009-11-06 11:52:03
But the macro `__cplusplus` should not be set to `199711L` for any compiler that does not implement the *full* C++98 standard.
dalle
2009-11-18 14:15:58