https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/13438 <p> Please can you add a check for the availability of C++17's <code>std::optional</code>. I think this would be really helpful because: </p> <ul><li>AFAIA, the major compilers all now have <code>optional</code> in <code>std::</code> (rather than in <code>std::experimental::</code>) </li><li>I get the impression that people are fast adopting <code>std::optional</code> as a standard part of their type vocabulary. </li><li>I know at least one other ticket (<a class="closed ticket" href="https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/12175" title="#12175: Feature Requests: Propose serialization supports std::experimental::optional (closed: wontfix)">ticket:12175</a>) that's declining to support <code>std::optional</code> until Boost Config offers this feature test. </li></ul><p> I'm not sure about Boost Config's policy about how it interacts with the standard's <a class="ext-link" href="http://en.cppreference.com/w/User:D41D8CD98F/feature_testing_macros"><span class="icon">​</span>feature testing macros</a> (which include one for <code>std::optional</code>). If you expect other libraries to use those feature tests directly, please can you point me to documentation for that policy that I can we can point other library devs to? </p> <p> Thanks very much. </p> en-us /htdocs/site/boost.png https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/13438 Trac 1.4.3 John Maddock Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:56:54 GMT https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/13438#comment:1 https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/13438#comment:1 <ul> <li><strong>status</strong> <span class="trac-field-old">new</span> → <span class="trac-field-new">closed</span> </li> <li><strong>resolution</strong> → <span class="trac-field-new">obsolete</span> </li> </ul> <p> Moved to <a class="ext-link" href="https://github.com/boostorg/config/issues/236"><span class="icon">​</span>https://github.com/boostorg/config/issues/236</a> </p> Ticket