Sergey Sadovnikov wrote:
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?
I'm pretty sure make_shared relies on implementation details of boost::shared_ptr. Also I IIRC boost::shared_ptr's aliasing constructor isn't in std::tr1::shared_ptr. There are other reasons that you might want to use the boost versions over the tr1 versions. For instance the boost unordered containers are supposedly faster than the vc9sp1 tr1 implementation and the vc9sp1 tr1::function has a broken swap which prevents it from being used in the std::containers because of the "Swaptimization". -- Michael Marcin