Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
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 09:37:03 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A37D9@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
Thread-Topic: Differences between tr1 and c++0x
Thread-Index: Aci7Vt6/xLblTe4MQBGrDgmHilvpQAAACDKg
References: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A499AA85A@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <48343E80.6030402@roguewave.com>
From: "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemings@roguewave.com>
To: <dev@stdcxx.apache.org>

=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:24 AM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Differences between tr1 and c++0x
>=20
> 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=20
> 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?
> >=20
> > Some of the issues...
> >=20
> > 	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]
> >=20
> > I just want to make absolutely sure that I'm working with the same
> > expectations as everyone else and that we are trying to=20
> implement the
> > c++0x draft features that were introduced in tr1. I'm=20
> currently writing
> > to the c++0x draft, but my tests use old section numbers=20
> from the tr1
> > final, and everything I've written is currently in the std::tr1
> > namespace [using a macro _TR1].
>=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.

Brad.