Martin Sebor wrote: > >Travis Vitek wrote: >> As most of us know, I've been working on type_traits for the 4.3 >> release. In doing so, I've noticed that there are some pretty >> significant differences between tr1 and c++0x. My question is what >> _exactly_ are we wanting to implement here? Do we want to >> have the tr1 stuff as it is documented [in the tr1 final], or do >> we want the tr1 additions as they appear in the c++0x working >> draft? >> >> Some of the issues... >> >> 1. The namespace that these features appear in [std::tr1 vs std] >> 2. Section numbers for test names [4.meta.rel.cpp vs >> 20.meta.rel.cpp] >> 3. Subtle differences between behavior of traits >> 4. Deprecated traits like add_reference [now >> add_lvalue_reference] >> >> I just want to make absolutely sure that I'm working with the same >> expectations as everyone else and that we are trying to implement the >> c++0x draft features that were introduced in tr1. I'm >currently writing >> to the c++0x draft, but my tests use old section numbers from the tr1 >> final, and everything I've written is currently in the std::tr1 >> namespace [using a macro _TR1]. > >IMO, we should target C++ 0x and forget TR1 even exists ;-)
So no _TR1 macro, no std::tr1 namespace, all tests named according to the section in the draft in which the feature appears, and requirements directly from the draft. That sounds good. >That said, all C++ 0x code should be guarded with the same >macro until the next standard is released. Maybe something >like _RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_0X? > That is something that I hadn't considered. I'll add that immediately. >Martin >
