Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 13235 invoked from network); 21 May 2008 15:24:15 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 May 2008 15:24:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 45283 invoked by uid 500); 21 May 2008 15:24:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 45256 invoked by uid 500); 21 May 2008 15:24:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 45241 invoked by uid 99); 21 May 2008 15:24:17 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:24:17 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.30.140.160] (HELO moroha.roguewave.com) (208.30.140.160) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 May 2008 15:23:24 +0000 Received: from nebula.bco.roguewave.com ([10.70.3.27]) by moroha.roguewave.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m4LFNiXU026217 for ; Wed, 21 May 2008 15:23:44 GMT Message-ID: <48343E80.6030402@roguewave.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:23:44 -0600 From: Martin Sebor Organization: Rogue Wave Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Subject: Re: Differences between tr1 and c++0x References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 ;-) 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? Martin