Re: Patch: stl_vector.h and vector.tcc

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Matt Austern <austern@apple.com> writes:

| On Jul 31, 2004, at 9:59 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:
| >
| > | Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
| > |
| > | >I think it makes more sense to make include/tr1/type_traits,
| > | >tr1/type_compare, tr1/type_transform. These includes would be
| > modeled on
| > | >the proposed files in TR1.  Also remove all the various other traits
| > | >bits we have now: bits/type_traits.h, bits/cpp_type_traits.h.
| > | >
| > | Hi Benjamin, all,
| > |
| > | taking into account both your and Matt messages (his "snag", in
| > | particular) seems
| > | still a nice idea completing the project that I started before my
| > | vacations (as a side
| > | effect of moving from function templates overloads to class templates
| > | partial
| > | specializations): changing all the library to use *only*
| > | cpp_type_traits.h. Now that
| > | stl_algobase.h is done, the rest of the project is just a matter of
| > | few hours of work.
| > | I can post a patch next week.
| >
| >
| > I believe Matt's suggestion is the right long term approach, assuming
| > we have an implementation of #nospam.  For the mid-term, I think that
| > using bits/cpp_type_traits.h is the most viable option -- with proper
| > uglification.
| 
| I wonder if this does have to be "long term"?  If we think that we
| have a good specification of preprocessor scoping, I bet it won't
| be that hard to implement.

Well, to make it clear, I do not believe it is hard to implement.
(I was hoping to get some spare time and give it a try.) 
It -might- however take some fair amont of time to get it in
mainline... 

| I don't attend EWG sessions, so I don't have a good sense of how it
| was received.

In Oxford and Kona, the idea was well-received.  As you know, I was,
unfortunately, unable to make it to Sydney...

|  Did it look to you as if the feature is ready to
| implement as Bjarne proposed it?

When I commented on the draft, the idea seems to me to be mainly
mature.  From my perspective, the only remaining bits is to turn it
into standardese and fix obscure corner cases.  But, you might also
want to look at Tom Plum's paper in the Sydney mailing (I think, it is
post-Sydney mailing). 

-- Gaby