11 Nov
2008
11 Nov
'08
8:24 p.m.
Hello, Michael. Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 11:09:03 PM you wrote: MM> Sergey Sadovnikov wrote:
Do you mean what there is no way to make boost and TR1 implementations don't conflict each other? And, for example, boost::shared_ptr couldn't be transparently replaced by corresponding TR1 class?
MM> Correct, TR1 shared_ptr doesn't support boost::make_shared for instance.
Hm. How I can see, boost::make_shared doesn't demand from shared_ptr class something special which not covered by TR1 specification. So I can replace explicit implementation of boost::shared_ptr with 'using std::tr1::shared_ptr' directive. Am I right? -- Best Regards, Sergey mailto:flex_ferrum@artberg.ru