> -----Original Message-----
> From: Travis Vitek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:20 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Differences between tr1 and c++0x
>
>
>
> 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.
Yeah, if that's consistent with the way things currently work, I
guess it's not really necessary. I was just thinking more along
the lines of the way things are (hopefully) gonna work; e.g.,
--disable-c++-0x (default in 4.3)
--enable-c++-0x (default in 5.0)
Brad.
