11 Oct
2005
11 Oct
'05
9:04 a.m.
All true. But there will still be the same problem if anyone uses the extensions with Boost.TR1. This would inevitably lead to the recommendation (but not from me) that if you want to use the extensions you should use boost::hash, not std::tr1::hash. But I was convinced by Peter and John's arguments (which I linked to before) that the extensions should be in Boost.TR1.
Personally, I would see the macro as being similar to 'strict', 'ansi' or 'no-extensions' compiler switches which I do find very useful, mainly for unit tests where you can generally avoid these kinds of conflicts. So the macro might have some use for when you want to guarantee that your code will work on other implementations of TR1.
I could go with that. John.