Re: [boost] [c++0x] Boost implementations of C++0x standard library?components?

Subject: Re: [boost] [c++0x] Boost implementations of C++0x standard library?components?
From: Jens Seidel (jensseidel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-05 10:58:35

On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 03:26:30PM +0000, Markus Werle wrote:
> Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
> > Here is a strawman proposal for how we organize C++0x standard library
> > components we choose to add to Boost:

I really like Beman's proposal, especially because ...

> I' d prefer a similar approach to the one taken for tr1:
> #include <boost/c++0x/chrono.hpp> will automagically use the version 
> the compiler provides if 
> a) it is available 
> and 
> b) this is not hindered by setting a MACRO e.g.
> BOOST_IGNORE_COMPILER_CPP0X_BUT_USE_BOOST_CPP0X 

... this would make my own code even more depending on Boost. I even
need some Boost header files for tr1 if my compiler has tr1 support.

Using Beman's suggestion I only have to write a little autoconf macro.
 
> > * C++0x standard library namespaces are used. Thus namespace std and
> > std::chrono rather than boost and boost::chrono.
> 
> Agreed, but like in tr1 both versions could be available, depending
> on which header I include, like for boost::function vs. tr1::function

Right ... :-(

Jens