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 16:20:22 GMT
 

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.

>
>Brad.
>

Mime
View raw message