incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: Differences between tr1 and c++0x
Date Wed, 21 May 2008 17:44:14 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Travis Vitek [mailto:Travis.Vitek@roguewave.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:20 AM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Differences between tr1 and c++0x
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >
> >Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> 
> >> IMO, we should target C++ 0x and forget TR1 even exists ;-)
> >> That said, all C++ 0x code should be guarded with the same
> >> macro until the next standard is released. Maybe something
> >> like _RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_0X?
> >
> >Agreed.  TR1, after all, was published as a draft.  In ISO/IEC
> >DTR19768 (N1836), Section 1, Paragraph 2 says "Some of these
> >components in this technical report may never be standardized,
> >and other may be standardized in a substantially changed form."
> >
> >Also, we'll need some sort of configure option that defines
> >(or undefines) the _RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_OX macro.
> 
> Why? Is it not sufficient to leave the macro undefined [or defined] by
> default, and then let the user disable [or enable] the extension by
> defining [or undefining] the macro? This is consistent with 
> the behavior
> used for all of the other _RWSTD_NO_EXT_* macros we have.

Yeah, if that's consistent with the way things currently work, I
guess it's not really necessary.  I was just thinking more along
the lines of the way things are (hopefully) gonna work; e.g.,

	--disable-c++-0x (default in 4.3)
	--enable-c++-0x (default in 5.0)

Brad.

Mime
View raw message