This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
Therefore I would ask you to go ahead with something straighforward,
as we discussed above: set-up a separate implementation of
type_traits for C++0x by copying the current TR1 one, adjusting the
names of those 4 traits discussed between yesterday and today, adding
the new traits.
Yeah, well.... this doesn't work.
I'm still of the opinion we should try, much, much, much harder.
Because, as I said, this is only the tip of the iceberg, features like
random are completely different (type_traits are mostlt different, after
2255) and we badly need a strategy for separate headers. Otherwise, long
term, we get crazy in a tangle of ifdefs...
If you want, I can take your patch and play with it.
Paolo.
- References:
- c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
- Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
- Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
- Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
- Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
- Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
- Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
- Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
- Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1
- Re: c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1