Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <461D5C2E.6090500@roguewave.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:07:42 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
Organization: Rogue Wave Software
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: TR1 Development Plan
References: <A2397926A72.0000029Dmbrown@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <A2397926A72.0000029Dmbrown@inbox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> I don't know if there is a development plan per se except for a number of Jira issues (one for each section of the TR). Your suggestion to make the extensions available in namespace std sounds like a fine idea to me.

The issue is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-27
and all its subtasks. And correct, there is no "master plan"
other than just the willingness and desire to do it :) The
only ingredient we're short on is time.

The idea behind the issue and the subtasks is for people to
add their comments (e.g., what they're working on, etc.) so
as to avoid duplication of effort. So I suppose you could
think of them as a poor man's version of a development plan.
If you'd like to propose a more formal process that would
be just fine with me :) We could even ask INFRA to set up
a Wiki for us to make collaborating easy.

Given that TR1 has been out for so long that it has been
incorporated into the draft C++ standard (except for the
special math functions) it probably makes sense to put the
implementation directly into namespace std as Brad suggests,
instead of into std::tr1. Guarding with a macro also sounds
like a good idea, at least until it's stable enough and until
the new standard is ratified.

> 
> I am also interested in the TR1 extensions but I haven't experimented with those in stdcxx yet. I have spent most of my time so far trying to understand the stdcxx build process and experimenting with the tests but as soon as I feel comfortable making more extensive changes I would like to offer my help with the new hash-based containers.

That or any other contributions would be most welcome!

Martin

> 
> -- Mark
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lemings@roguewave.com
>> Sent: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:14:01 -0600
>> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: TR1 Development Plan
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I was wondering if there was a TR1 development plan in place, informal
>> or otherwise, for TR1 development.  I noticed that there is some
>> existing TR1 classes but the headers are rather old and they reside in
>> the transitional std::tr1 namespace.
>>
>> I was thinking perhaps integrate the TR1 extensions directly into their
>> eventual namespace and headers and enable or disable the TR1 extensions
>> with a compile-time macro.  If the _RWSTD_ENABLE_TR1 or some such macro
>> is defined (initially undefined by default), then the TR1 classes will
>> be defined.
>>
>> If anyone has thoughts on the issue, please post them.  Also if there
>> are docs somewhere that outline the plan for TR1, please point them out.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop!
> Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium