incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Travis Vitek" <Travis.Vi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: Differences between tr1 and c++0x
Date Wed, 21 May 2008 15:39:16 GMT
 

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.

>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?
>

That is something that I hadn't considered. I'll add that immediately.

>Martin
>

Mime
View raw message