Subject: Re: [boost] Any Chances for Boost Stable?
Date: 2010-01-21 15:42:53
Zitat von Artyom <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]>:
>> Maintaining binary compatability in C++ requires great
>> effort and has
>> performance implications, so I don't think it's reasonable
>> to ask for
> The performance implications are quite neligable, similar to
> usage of virtual functions, on the other hand, it even
> may improve performance because of smaller size of executable...
> But this is not the point;
> Nobody says keeping ABI is simple
it´s not practical for templates and impossible in some cases.
example for not pratical:
Boost.Intrusive changed the return type of
intrusive::unordered_set::erase from iterator to void. for most use
cases, this does not break source compatibility, but binary.
using a virtual function or similar for Container::erase is not practical.
example for impossible:
Intrusive also changed the return type of
unordered_set::erase_and_dispose, which is a template function.
> The problem is that Boost today is what JDK for Java. What would
Java/JDK has generics and an inlining JIT-compiler.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk