Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] question about C++11 guidelines
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-05 08:04:30

on Thu May 03 2012, Doug Gregor <> wrote:

> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Say I'm rewriting an existing Boost library and targeting C++11 users. I
>> plan to ship C++03 and C++11 versions of my library side-by-side, so
>> back-compat isn't an issue for the new code. Is there a reason to prefer
>> using Boost's versions of utilities like enable_if, type traits,
>> integral constant wrappers (e.g. mpl::int_), tuples, etc., over the
>> now-standard ones?
>> I'm leaning toward using std:: where I can, and falling back on Boost's
>> versions only when there is a compelling reason.
> Boost in C++11 should use the std:: facilities.
> Boost provides existing practice and reference implementations to aid
> in the standardization process. But we don't actually realize the
> benefits of standardizing Boost components if we never move off our
> own reference implementations. If there is a problem with a vendor's
> implementation of these std:: facilities, we should help that vendor
> get the implementation right.

+1, but what about additional features? Some of the libraries we have
implemented offer new features that aren't available in the standard

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at