> Does exporting some of these symbols and vtables from the library mean > we're less able to change them? I'm not confident all ofthe C++0x > bits are entirely stable yet.
Yes, it does. What are the new exports that concern you? There are some things I purposely did not include. For instance, <regex>. Some of <future> can be further optimized for the void specializations, but I did not do that to give implementation flexibility in the future. > I see you've given future_base::_Result_base a virtual destructor, is > there a specific reason for that? Yes... > Destruction should always be via > the virtual _M_destroy function and so 'delete' is called in the final > overrider, where the static type and dynamic type are the same. The > virtual destructor adds unnecessary overhead, though it's probably > negligible. Yeah on negligible. I don't see the addition as a correctness issue, right? The __future_base nested classes don't seem to be changing all that much, but I will defer to you if you are uneasy about specific changes. Doing this may allow the control of all vague symbols in <future> for standard instantiations in the future. best, -benjamin
