Eric Lemings wrote: > >Martin Sebor wrote: >> >> IMO, we should target C++ 0x and forget TR1 even exists ;-) >> 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? > >Agreed. TR1, after all, was published as a draft. In ISO/IEC >DTR19768 (N1836), Section 1, Paragraph 2 says "Some of these >components in this technical report may never be standardized, >and other may be standardized in a substantially changed form." > >Also, we'll need some sort of configure option that defines >(or undefines) the _RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_OX macro.
Why? Is it not sufficient to leave the macro undefined [or defined] by default, and then let the user disable [or enable] the extension by defining [or undefining] the macro? This is consistent with the behavior used for all of the other _RWSTD_NO_EXT_* macros we have. > >Brad. >
