From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-13 12:45:41
At 06:01 AM 11/13/2004, John Maddock wrote:
>Personally I would rather not see Boost components replaced with std::tr1
>versions, I would rather that:
>boost::something always gave you the Boost version, for reasons of
>portability, extra features or just personal preference some users may
>std::tr1 gives you the tr1 version if it's available, otherwise the Boost
>In other words I'm suggesting a tr1 subdirectory in the Boost tree
>containing the tr1 headers, which would either be wrappers to the std or
>Boost versions as required.
That would seem to cater to both boost users and boost developers, allowing
either to specify the boost library always (by simply ignoring the tr1
subtree), or the native tr1 code if available but the boost code otherwise
(by #including from the tr1 subtree and using the std::tr1 namespace). It
works regardless of whether full or partial native tr1 implementations are
available. It isolates all the messy #ifdefs into the tr1 subtree headers,
so regular boost code doesn't have to be littered with tr1 related #ifdefs.
I like it. Will there be serious ADL issues?
Presumably the tr1 subtree would go in the boost directory?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk