On 1 June 2012 23:19, Stephan T. Lavavej <stl@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
[Daniel James]
if that's the case then IMO it'd better if they named it something different, since it's used differently and it'd allow a smoother transition when they are implemented.
I don't think that that would buy anything. You'll get compiler errors either way (expecting real template aliases and getting fake, or vice versa), so changing the name wouldn't do anything - you'd still need an #ifdef.
When template aliases become available, to use them you'll need to replace 'rebind_alloc' which will break any code which uses the 'other' member. If you used a different name then you could leave that in alongside the template alias so that existing code would continue to work. It'd also have been a more useful error message, if it just said that 'rebind_alloc' isn't available, I'd have instantly known what the issue was, instead there was an odd error about 'value_type'.