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 <doug.gregor-AT-gmail.com> 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 http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk