From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-11 04:04:55
> All true. But there will still be the same problem if anyone uses the
> extensions with Boost.TR1. This would inevitably lead to the
> recommendation (but not from me) that if you want to use the
> you should use boost::hash, not std::tr1::hash. But I was convinced by
> Peter and John's arguments (which I linked to before) that the
> extensions should be in Boost.TR1.
> Personally, I would see the macro as being similar to 'strict', 'ansi'
> or 'no-extensions' compiler switches which I do find very useful,
> for unit tests where you can generally avoid these kinds of conflicts.
> So the macro might have some use for when you want to guarantee that
> your code will work on other implementations of TR1.
I could go with that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk