This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [libstdc++ PATH] tr1::bind support
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- To: Chris Jefferson <caj at cs dot york dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Douglas Gregor <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>,libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:54:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: [libstdc++ PATH] tr1::bind support
- References: <200503201556.53335.doug.gregor@gmail.com> <423E00C6.2010601@cs.york.ac.uk>
Chris Jefferson wrote:
I've briefly looked over the library and it seems good at a brief
glance :) Note that tuple is going to gain more than 10 parameters, as
soon as we decide the best way of macroising things. The two
implementations floating around (generate from a C file, which is in
4.0 and I suspect will stay there now, and a preprocessor library) can
both cope with more than 10 paraneters.
Does the general opinion seem to be that the system used by the
non-tuple tr1 headers (non-intellegent repeated inclusion of header)
the best way to go?
Yes, I think that the current consensus is for the solution introduced
by Doug (I clearly remember a message from Benjamin, for instance).
Therefore, Chris, since we need to standardize to 20 parameters (and
*definitely* avoid those workarounds in mu_iterate.h) we can either
regenerate the tuple header using your C program, or (preferably ;)
introduce the same solution for tuple too. Of course it's up to you, but
we don't have much time to decide since we *really* hope to check-in the
remaining parts of "3 function objects" in time for 4.0, also allowing
for some testing...
Generally, Doug, your contribution is certainly Ok with me and very
welcome, thanks!
Paolo.