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 19:56:35 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:16 PM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Differences between tr1 and c++0x
> 
> Travis Vitek wrote:
> >  
> > 
> > Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> Travis Vitek wrote:
> >>> As most of us know, I've been working on type_traits for the 4.3
> >>> release. In doing so, I've noticed that there are some pretty
> >>> significant differences between tr1 and c++0x. My question is what
> >>> _exactly_ are we wanting to implement here? Do we want to 
> >>> have the tr1 stuff as it is documented [in the tr1 final], or do
> >>> we want the tr1 additions as they appear in the c++0x working
> >>> draft?
> >>>
> >>> Some of the issues...
> >>>
> >>> 	1. The namespace that these features appear in [std::tr1 vs std]
> >>>    2. Section numbers for test names [4.meta.rel.cpp vs
> >>> 20.meta.rel.cpp]
> >>> 	3. Subtle differences between behavior of traits
> >>> 	4. Deprecated traits like add_reference [now
> >>> add_lvalue_reference]
> >>>
> >>> I just want to make absolutely sure that I'm working with the same
> >>> expectations as everyone else and that we are trying to 
> implement the
> >>> c++0x draft features that were introduced in tr1. I'm 
> >> currently writing
> >>> to the c++0x draft, but my tests use old section numbers 
> from the tr1
> >>> final, and everything I've written is currently in the std::tr1
> >>> namespace [using a macro _TR1].
> >> IMO, we should target C++ 0x and forget TR1 even exists ;-)
> > 
> > So no _TR1 macro, no std::tr1 namespace, all tests named 
> according to
> > the section in the draft in which the feature appears, and 
> requirements
> > directly from the draft. That sounds good.
> 
> We should probably also rename and/or reorganize the Jira TR1
> Components. Two possible approaches come to mind:
> 
>    1) Integrate each TR1 component into the C++ component where
>       it will end up in C++ 0x.
> 
>    2) Rename each TR1 component to start with the C++ 0x section
>       number but the (possibly new) name from C++0 0x and with
>       the C++ 0x suffix. E.g., rename TR1.2 - General Utilities
>       to 20. General Utilities (C++ 0x).
> 
> Do we have a preference?

I like the first choice and put "(C++ 0x)" somewhere in the issue name.

Brad.

Mime
View raw message