Re: [boost] Two alined_storage classes in the CVS

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-05 08:56:52

John Maddock wrote:
>> In my opinion, the older version needs to be removed entirely and the
>> libraries should be updated to use the TR1 version of
>> aligned_storage.
>
> I wondered about that as well, in fact I started testing a possible
> fix, only to realise half way through that it's more or less trivial to
> patch the "old" aligned_storage to make it conform to the TR (just
> needs a ::type typedef member), I'm testing that now, but expect to
> see the new version disappear from cvs shortly.

This would indeed solve our short-term problem, but by promoting a 
nonstandard aligned_storage, aren't we doing our users a disservice by 
making it harder for them to migrate to the "real" aligned_storage?