From dev-return-7660-apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive=stdcxx.apache.org@stdcxx.apache.org Wed May 21 16:20:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 45632 invoked from network); 21 May 2008 16:20:56 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 May 2008 16:20:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 51349 invoked by uid 500); 21 May 2008 16:20:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 51336 invoked by uid 500); 21 May 2008 16:20:57 -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 51309 invoked by uid 99); 21 May 2008 16:20:57 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 May 2008 09:20:57 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.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 16:20:11 +0000 Received: from exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com (exchmail01.blue.roguewave.com [10.22.129.22]) by moroha.roguewave.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m4LGKPXl028112 for ; Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:25 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Differences between tr1 and c++0x Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:20:22 -0600 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Differences between tr1 and c++0x Thread-Index: Aci7Vt6/xLblTe4MQBGrDgmHilvpQAAACDKgAAFHN+A= References: <48343E80.6030402@roguewave.com> From: "Travis Vitek" To: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org =20 Eric Lemings wrote: > >Martin Sebor wrote: >>=20 >> 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. >