Re: STL annoyances
On 2010-05-28 03:13:53 -1000, Leigh Johnston said:
As it stands TR1 is a transient, shard_ptr in TR1 for example does not
have move constructors. I *do* use TR1 BTW and once I upgrade to a
C++0x compiler I will do a global search and replace of my code
replacing "std::tr1" with "std".
Good luck.
The FCD makes no mention of "tr1" (I cannot find any mentions at
least) so it is unclear that it is a requirement for a C++0x
implementation to support the tr1 namespace. If that is the case then
TR1 as an entity is a transient aberration, simply a stop gap which we
have been using for a few years whilst waiting for C++0x.
No, the FCD does not mention TR1. Nor does C++03, of course. TR1 is a
"Technical Report". It exists independently of the C++ standard. People
who write code to it will not, in general, blast away at their
namespaces with the assumption that code they've written using TR1 will
continue to work in exactly the same way using C++0x. Maintaining
source code compatibility with TR1 has been a consideration for the TR1
components that have been moved into C++0x, but it has not been a
requirement.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)