Re: [Boost-users] [TR1 Review] TR1 Formal Review Beginning

From: Simon Buchan (simon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-26 17:38:09

Howard Hinnant wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2005, at 10:29 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sep 25, 2005, at 7:52 PM, Simon Buchan wrote:
>>
>>>Hmm, I think a lot of distributions of TR1 will, at first, be edited,
>>>copied, trimmed, out-of-date, versions of boost's implementations
>>>anyway,
>>
>>I'm not sure this is true; at least, it isn't for the 3
>>implementations of TR1 that I know are in development. All of them
>>were built (mostly) from scratch, although the authors did borrow
>>some ideas and test cases from the Boost implementations.
> 
> 
> <nod>
> 
> CodeWarrior Pro 9 has:
> 
>      template <class Sig> class result_of
>      template <class T> class reference_wrapper
>      template <class T> reference_wrapper<T> ref(T& t)
>      template <class T> reference_wrapper<const T> cref(const T& t)
>      template <class Sig> class function
>      template<class T> class shared_ptr
>      template<class T> class weak_ptr
>      template<class T> class enable_shared_from_this
>      template <class T0, class T1, ... class T9> class tuple
> 
> Pro 10 (beta) adds:
> 
> bind
> array
> type_traits
> 
> All built as Doug describes.  This "native" implementation can take 
> advantage of compiler functionality such as __declspec__ or __typeof__, 
> and superior type traits support.  And bind just kicks butt with rvalue 
> reference capability turned on. ;-)  Definitely not "copied, trimmed, 
> out-of-date."
> 
> -Howard
Ahh, sorry, I've only seen the temporary GCC, and an unofficial MSVC 
(can't remember where) implementation. (Bows head)
Is CodeWarrior still going strong?  I thought Apple dumped them or 
something?  (Off-Topic, don't need to reply)