Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-20 08:27:37

Jeff Garland wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> ...
>> Perhaps all of us working on C++0x stuff could work on a common branch, say
>> branches/cpp0x.
> Do we need a branch? Since much of the initial stuff is additions I think a
> big chunk can just go on the main branch -- I'm just worried it will be hard
> to get tests if we go to a branch.

Some of the C++0x config stuff I'm working on requires changes to
boost/config headers that will force recompiles of much of Boost. Thus I
don't want to merge that into the trunk until it is known good and has
been looked at by others.

The N2661 additions require changes to Boost type traits, date-time,
threads, and whatever library ratio goes into. It seems like the best
way to coordinate that is for the developers working on those components
to work on a branch.

C++0x is no longer something off in the far distant future. The
committee's plan is to ship a feature complete (including Concepts)
draft of the standard after the September meeting. GCC, Borland, and
Intel have shipped (GCC) or are in beta with compilers supporting
important C++0x features such as rvalue references. Other compiler
suppliers are known to be actively working on C++ features for their
next releases.


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