5 Feb
2005
5 Feb
'05
1:56 p.m.
John Maddock wrote:
In my opinion, the older version needs to be removed entirely and the libraries should be updated to use the TR1 version of aligned_storage.
I wondered about that as well, in fact I started testing a possible fix, only to realise half way through that it's more or less trivial to patch the "old" aligned_storage to make it conform to the TR (just needs a ::type typedef member), I'm testing that now, but expect to see the new version disappear from cvs shortly.
This would indeed solve our short-term problem, but by promoting a nonstandard aligned_storage, aren't we doing our users a disservice by making it harder for them to migrate to the "real" aligned_storage?