Sergey Sadovnikov wrote:
Many of the boost libraries have evolved beyond their TR1 counter parts. Boost's shared_ptr is a good example of this. I primarily use VC9 SP1 which has a tr1 implementation but I use features of boost::shared_ptr that std::tr1::shared_ptr doesn't have.
Do you mean what there is no way to make boost and TR1 implementations don't conflict each other?
IMO they don't conflict *now*, not unless carelessly polute the global namespace. BTW Boost.TR1 has the semantics you were looking for: #include <memory> // with boost/tr1/tr1 in the include path std::tr1::shared_ptr<foo> fooptr; // uses vendor supplied shared_ptr if available, otherwise Boost version.
And, for example, boost::shared_ptr couldn't be transparently replaced by corresponding TR1 class?
The Boost versions of the TR1 components typically have extensions that aren't available in the standard versions. Further some people may prefer to use *the same implementation*, ie the Boost one, across multiple platforms and compilers. IMO the Boost versions should continue to exist and evolve. John.