Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-08 23:09:58

On 8 February 2018 at 16:58, Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> degski wrote:
>
> No, no, no, f.e. boost::mp11, or boost::beast are to be compiled with
>> C++11 and should therefor use std C++11 libraries instead of their
>> equivalent boost version...
>>
>
> That's what they do; except Beast uses Boost.System because ASIO uses it,
> and it uses Boost.Optional and boost::string_view because std::optional and
> std::string_view are C++17, and so on.

But, do the libs you quoted use std::optional and std::string_view (instead
of their boost impersonations) when compiled with C++17? That is core of
the point I'm trying to make. boost::beast is committed to go exactly the
road I'm advocating, once the Network TS (Vinnie will be happy) is
standardized.

It's not like we go out of our way to avoid using the available standard
> facilities.

I never said, or intend to imply, that *you* do, I know you don't.

degski