Jeff Garland wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
... Perhaps all of us working on C++0x stuff could work on a common branch, say branches/cpp0x.
Do we need a branch? Since much of the initial stuff is additions I think a big chunk can just go on the main branch -- I'm just worried it will be hard to get tests if we go to a branch.
Some of the C++0x config stuff I'm working on requires changes to boost/config headers that will force recompiles of much of Boost. Thus I don't want to merge that into the trunk until it is known good and has been looked at by others. The N2661 additions require changes to Boost type traits, date-time, threads, and whatever library ratio goes into. It seems like the best way to coordinate that is for the developers working on those components to work on a branch. C++0x is no longer something off in the far distant future. The committee's plan is to ship a feature complete (including Concepts) draft of the standard after the September meeting. GCC, Borland, and Intel have shipped (GCC) or are in beta with compilers supporting important C++0x features such as rvalue references. Other compiler suppliers are known to be actively working on C++ features for their next releases. --Beman