|
Boost :
|
- Next message: Eric Niebler: "Re: [boost] [fusion] html docs woes"
- Previous message: Fernando Pelliccioni: "Re: [boost] RFC: type erasure"
- Next in thread: Antony Polukhin: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Reply: Antony Polukhin: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Reply: Artyom Beilis: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Reply: Mathias Gaunard: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Maybe reply: Artyom Beilis: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Reply: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
I'm starting to fold in Boost.Filesystem support for the new C++0x
character types. Support is emulated for compilers and standard
libraries not currently supporting the 0x features. The emulation is
working fine, with tests passing on Windows for GCC 4.5 and 4.6, and
VC++ 8, 9, and 10. Haven't tested on non-Windows systems yet.
This is the same emulation approach Microsoft ships in VC++ 10.
It seems to me that all Boost libraries that want to emulate these 0X
features should use the a unified approach. Otherwise we could get
into a situation where libraries A and B worked fine in isolation, but
had symbol or ODR clashes when used together.
The header I'm using is attached. I propose to place this in
<boost/string_0x.hpp> rather than, say,
<boost/filesystem/detail/string_0x.hpp>, and providing a simple doc
page.
Does this make sense?
--Beman
- Next message: Eric Niebler: "Re: [boost] [fusion] html docs woes"
- Previous message: Fernando Pelliccioni: "Re: [boost] RFC: type erasure"
- Next in thread: Antony Polukhin: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Reply: Antony Polukhin: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Reply: Artyom Beilis: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Reply: Mathias Gaunard: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Maybe reply: Artyom Beilis: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
- Reply: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] Emulate C++0x char16_t, char32_t, std::u16string, and std::u32string"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk