Re: [boost] Re: C++ committee Library TR progress in Santa Cruz

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-31 17:49:24

On Thursday 31 October 2002 02:31 pm, James Curran/MVP wrote:
> "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:4.3.2.7.2.20021027093453.00c75820_at_mailhost.esva.net...
>
> > Doug Gregor, Jaakko Jarvi, and Gary Powell were at the meeting, and
> > worked until 3 AM revising and syncing their proposals. These revisions
> > were accepted by the LWG, and then the full committee, so function object
> > wrappers and tuples became the first libraries formally accepted for the
> > Library TR. Congratulations!
>
>     Forgive me if this subject was dealt with elsewhere.....
>
>     I assume that this now means that these classes should be defined in
> the std:: namespace.  What effect does that have on Boost?  Should their
> reference versions here be moved into std:: or kept in boost::?  If we move
> them to std::, must they be frozen to exactly match what's in the TR, or it
> further development possible on them?

Completely moving these libraries from namespace boost to namespace std would 
be a mistake, because it would force users to chance their code and, worse, 
it might conflict with a vendor-supplied implementation. 

We might consider supplying import headers to pull the Boost versions into 
namespace std, e.g., header <functional> would contain:

  namespace std {
    using boost::function;
    using boost::bad_function_call;
  } 
  // would have to rely on extensions to pick up old library...
  #include_next <functional>

        Doug