Re: [boost] Boost implementation of the Library TR?

[Richard Hadsell]

Beman Dawes wrote:

* What if the committee changes the namespace?

  Hum... That could happen. Maybe we should use a macro to make it easy
  to change.
A macro would be ugly, unless it looked just like the namespace.  Can 
you define a macro to make std::tr1 be equivalent to std::tr2?

Can't you do something that imports all of the new namespace into the 
old namespace, so that people could make the change (or not) to the new 
namespace gradually?

--
Dick Hadsell914-259-6320  Fax: 914-259-6499
Reply-to:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blue Sky Studioshttp://www.blueskystudios.com
44 South Broadway, White Plains, NY 10601
___
Unsubscribe  other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

RE: [boost] Boost implementation of the Library TR?

[Hartmut Kaiser]

Richard Hadsell wrote:

 Beman Dawes wrote:
 
  * What if the committee changes the namespace?
 
Hum... That could happen. Maybe we should use a macro to 
 make it easy
to change.
 
 A macro would be ugly, unless it looked just like the namespace.  Can 
 you define a macro to make std::tr1 be equivalent to std::tr2?

Only with macro scopes as discussed recently on this list:

#region std
#  define tr1 std::tr2
#endregion

namespace std::tr1 {}  // expands to namespace std::tr2 {}

Regards Hartmut


___
Unsubscribe  other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Re: [boost] Boost implementation of the Library TR?

[Douglas Gregor]

On Wednesday 30 April 2003 08:25 am, Beman Dawes wrote:
 * What namespace should the Boost version go in?

(tr1 is t, r, followed by numeral one, and is the committee's
tentative choice for a sub-namespace.)

std::tr1   // well, this IS an implementation of the standard TR
boost::tr1 // users can pick and choose, also more traditional

Putting everything into boost::tr1 feels like gratuitous code movement. Then 
our users' migration path is from ::boost to ::boost::tr1 to ::std::tr1. Why 
bother with the intermediate step?

 * What header naming convention?

 Note that users can pick and choose an implementation by header
choice, even if we use namespace std::tr1.

I'd prefer to use the standard's naming convention for headers, to make it a 
real implementation of TR1. There is one problem with this that I don't know 
how to completely solve: some of the new libraries are extensions to old 
headers, e.g., function, reference_wrapper, and bind all go into 
functional. Can we rely on something like GNU's #include_next to allow us 
to have our own functional that falls back to the standard library's 
functional?
  
 * Should we continue to maintain the pre-TR Boost versions of the
 libraries?

Decide this on a library by library basis  Long term, probably don't
want to continue as we don't want to compete against the standard
 itself.

We should maintain the pre-TR versions at least until the TR gets its rubber 
stamp, because until then the TR versions may still change whereas the pre-TR 
versions are generally quite stable.

Doug
___
Unsubscribe  other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost