Boost logo

Boost :

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-15 20:31:28

Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>>Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>>>5) Provide a tuple TR1 interface on top of fusion.
>>>>6) Provide a backward compatible interface (for old tuples) on
>>>> top of fusion.
>>>Also, I think having both 5) and 6) will be confusing. I'd prefer to
>>>get rid of 6). This will obviously break some code, but it will be
>>>much easier to adapt old code to the new interface than it was,
>>>e.g., to adapt code to use the new iterator adaptors.
>>5 and 6 will have to either-or through a PP define. Yes, it
>>can't be both at the same time. We can deprecate 6 and
>>phase it out in the future. We can't simply kill it now.
>>TR1 deos not provide a way to extend a tuple, for example.
> Okay, I thought people who used cons lists were relying on an implementation
> detail, but I see that it is documented under "advanced features."
> Still, I'm not sure why you can't eliminate 6) at the same time you introduce
> fusion. People who need extensible tuples can use fusion sequences.

That will lessen my work a lot. But don't you think that's too
abrupt? Perhaps those who use old tuple's advanced features are
advanced users anyway who won't mind tweaking their code? Toughts?
Jaakko? Anyone?


Joel de Guzman

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at