On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) wrote: > This gets to the larger question of when we will require C++11, > which in my mind is probably a good year or so from now. In the > meantime, should we bother trying to track partially implemented > subsets?
Using C++11 (or TR1) when it's available can be beneficial for making sure there's an unordered_set and unordered_map available for us to use. We fall back on set and map otherwise, but the asymptotic complexity is worse (otherwise we'd have specified a set or map instead of one of my ugly macros to begin with) when we do. Making sure we compile with C++11 turned on is critical; we especially don't want to break when someone tries to pull in one of our headers into the new standard. Actually *requiring* C++11, I'd prefer to wait for another year or two at least; last time I checked (which admittedly was a while ago) even Intel wasn't entirely up to spec yet, and I'll bet there's people stuck on older icpc and other old commercial compilers out there. I could be talked into an earlier upgrade if nobody screams too loud, though; getting some of the best Boost-isms without requiring Boost would be nice. --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Windows 8 Center - In partnership with Sourceforge Your idea - your app - 30 days. Get started! http://windows8center.sourceforge.net/ what-html-developers-need-to-know-about-coding-windows-8-metro-style-apps/ _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
