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

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-30 09:37:46

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