Mark Brown wrote:
Hi Eric,
I don't know if there is a development plan per se except for a number of Jira
issues (one for each section of the TR). Your suggestion to make the extensions
available in namespace std sounds like a fine idea to me.
The issue is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-27
and all its subtasks. And correct, there is no "master plan"
other than just the willingness and desire to do it :) The
only ingredient we're short on is time.
The idea behind the issue and the subtasks is for people to
add their comments (e.g., what they're working on, etc.) so
as to avoid duplication of effort. So I suppose you could
think of them as a poor man's version of a development plan.
If you'd like to propose a more formal process that would
be just fine with me :) We could even ask INFRA to set up
a Wiki for us to make collaborating easy.
Given that TR1 has been out for so long that it has been
incorporated into the draft C++ standard (except for the
special math functions) it probably makes sense to put the
implementation directly into namespace std as Brad suggests,
instead of into std::tr1. Guarding with a macro also sounds
like a good idea, at least until it's stable enough and until
the new standard is ratified.
I am also interested in the TR1 extensions but I haven't experimented with
those in stdcxx yet. I have spent most of my time so far trying to understand
the stdcxx build process and experimenting with the tests but as soon as I feel
comfortable making more extensive changes I would like to offer my help with
the new hash-based containers.
That or any other contributions would be most welcome!
Martin
-- Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:14:01 -0600
To: [email protected]
Subject: TR1 Development Plan
Hello all,
I was wondering if there was a TR1 development plan in place, informal
or otherwise, for TR1 development. I noticed that there is some
existing TR1 classes but the headers are rather old and they reside in
the transitional std::tr1 namespace.
I was thinking perhaps integrate the TR1 extensions directly into their
eventual namespace and headers and enable or disable the TR1 extensions
with a compile-time macro. If the _RWSTD_ENABLE_TR1 or some such macro
is defined (initially undefined by default), then the TR1 classes will
be defined.
If anyone has thoughts on the issue, please post them. Also if there
are docs somewhere that outline the plan for TR1, please point them out.
Thanks,
Eric.
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your
desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
