On Feb 15, 2005, at 7:31 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
5) Provide a tuple TR1 interface on top of fusion. 6) Provide a backward compatible interface (for old tuples) on top of fusion. Also, I think having both 5) and 6) will be confusing. I'd prefer to get rid of 6). This will obviously break some code, but it will be much easier to adapt old code to the new interface than it was, e.g., to adapt code to use the new iterator adaptors.
5 and 6 will have to either-or through a PP define. Yes, it can't be both at the same time. We can deprecate 6 and phase it out in the future. We can't simply kill it now. TR1 deos not provide a way to extend a tuple, for example. Okay, I thought people who used cons lists were relying on an implementation detail, but I see that it is documented under "advanced features." Still, I'm not sure why you can't eliminate 6) at the same time you introduce fusion. People who need extensible tuples can use fusion sequences.
That will lessen my work a lot. But don't you think that's too abrupt? Perhaps those who use old tuple's advanced features are advanced users anyway who won't mind tweaking their code? Toughts? Jaakko? Anyone?
I think it would be too abrupt (to just not provide the old tuple features). Even thought directly relying on cons lists are documented as advanced features, they are documented. But I think it would be fine to just keep the old tuples around for a few releases, and not bother replicating the old interface on top of fusion. That would seem like a wasted effort. We could just have a #define like BOOST_USE_OLD_DEPRECATED_TUPLES that would include the old implementation. If a user downloads a new release of Boost, and realizes that his code that relies on old tuple features does not work, there would be a quick fix with the #define, but it would clearly indicate that it's time to rework parts of the code. Best, Jaakko