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