Re: [boost] [algorithm] aesthetic question about cxx11

Subject: Re: [boost] [algorithm] aesthetic question about cxx11
From: lcaminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-27 11:13:03

Stewart, Robert wrote
> 
> Marshall Clow wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 10:50 AM, lcaminiti wrote:
>>
>> > I have an aesthetic question. Boost.Algorithm puts C++11
>> > algorithms like all_of into a directory
>> > boost/algorithm/cxx11. Would the directory name
>> > boost/algorithm/cpp11 be preferred?
>> >
>> > I think for file names .cpp and .hpp are Boost choice over
>> > .cxx and .hxx. But for directory names instead cxx11 is Boost
>> > choice over cpp11? Similarly, shall macros that refer to
>> > C++11 be named BOOST_..._CPP11_... or BOOST_..._CXX11_...?
> 
>> Just to let you know, the directory boost/algorithm/cxx11 has
>> not been a part of any boost release yet (it will be part
>> of1.50), so changing it should not break any existing code.
>>
>> As to using cxx11 vs cpp11, I don't really have a preference.
> 
> As Lorenzo notes, the suffixes suggest that the directory names should use
> "cpp", too, but there is a difference.  In "cxx11", the "cxx" is in
> reference to a standard version, rather than to the language itself, so a
> distinction might be appropriate.
> 
> I, too, don't really have a preference.  However, the directories and
> corresponding macros should use p/P or x/X consistently.
> 

1. Yes, I should have pointed out that Algorithm uses cxx11 only in trunk so
all options are on the table (no user code will brake if we change that).

2. Yes, as a user I'd be OK with "I use .cpp/.hpp for file names but cxx/CXX
for naming the language standard".

In the ScopeExit improvements I used a macro
BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT_CONFIG_NO_CPP11 to force disabling implementation that uses
C++11 features (lamba functions and auto declarations) even on C++11
compilers. That's also just in the trunk so I can easily change it to
BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT_CONFIG_NO_CXX11.

Are there other Boost libraries (better if already released) that have used
cpp/CPP over cxx/CXX to refer to the standard name? That could be used as a
precedence to make a decision keeping consistency while braking no existing
code.

Thanks.
--Lorenzo

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-algorithm-aesthetic-question-about-cxx11-tp4422682p4425109.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.