From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-20 08:05:22
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
>> Hum... I think we should follow the Boost TR1 practice, which provides
>> the actual declarations and definitions in a boost:: sub-namespace,
>> and then provides a <boost/tr1/whatever> header that hoists the names
>> into namespace std::tr1 with usings.
> This is valid for an existing boost library that is later accepted for
> the TR1, but not for a library that is accepted for the TR1 and need an
> implementation in boost.
>> So in this case, we would provide a <boost/cpp0x/chrono> header with
>> names in namespace std::chrono. The names would be hoisted into that
>> namespace via usings from a boost namespace such as your suggested
>> boost::cpp0x::date_time or boost::date_time::cpp0x or
>> boost::date_time::chrono or whatever.
>> How does that sound?
> I don't understand. boost::tr1is already used for all the TR1 additions
> of c++0x? So why not place all these files directly on the boost/tr1
> directory with namespace std::tr1 or a more specific one?
> Am I missed some thing?
Yes:-) These additions are pure C++0x components and are not part of any
TR. They are going directly into the standard.
Incidentally, TR1 is long since complete and will never be changed. Any
new library components not put directly into the standard during this
revision cycle will go into TR2, a new technical report.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk