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
> * Should we continue to maintain the pre-TR Boost versions of the
> 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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk