Subject: Re: [boost] question about C++11 guidelines
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-05 04:40:44
Le 04/05/12 22:33, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
> On Friday 04 May 2012 20:03:51 Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> Le 04/05/12 08:32, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
>>> On Friday 04 May 2012 07:44:56 Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>>> IMO, every Boost library that has a counterpart in the standard should
>>>> comply with the standard as much as possible and should use the standard
>>>> whenever it is possible (that is the class/function is available and the
>>>> library don't introduce extensions on them). Any deviation from the
>>>> standard could be seen as a defect and should either be fixed or
>>>> described explicitly as a limitation on the documentation.
>>> Although, this is not exactly on-topic, I don't agree with you here. It is
>>> the library author's choice whether to make the library strictly a
>>> drop-in replacement for a standard component or an independent library
>>> with it's own features that in some aspects reflect the standard by
>>> historical reasons. Neither approach is a limitation or a flaw.
>> Is there something wrong in stating explicitly the differences?
> No, it's just those differences should not be viewed as limitations.
Agreed when it is intentional, but not when it is a missing or partially
implemented feature. For example, the standard has
template <class F, class ...Args> explicit thread(F&& f, Args&&... args);
Boost.Thread has not yet implemented this function completely. I see
this as a limitation. The limitation could be resolved or not in a
portable way, but at least on C++11 compilers the feature should be
implemented in a near future. We plan to do it, but as you know we can
not do everything at once ;-). Hopping this clarifies my point.
Sorry for been out of topic,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk