Subject: Re: [boost] question about C++11 guidelines
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-05 08:08:45
on Fri May 04 2012, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet-AT-wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le 04/05/12 10:18, John Maddock a Ã©crit :
>>> 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
>> If we do that then those libraries will wither and die, Boost
>> authors should be able to continue to enhance and expand capability,
>> possibly with a view towards the *next* standard. Besides just
>> because the standard reflects best practice right now, that doesn't
>> mean that future tricks won't come along that improve things
> I don't see how my point of view disable to enhance the capacity of
> the library. Replace if you want "describe explicitly as a limitation"
> by "describe explicitly the differences.
I think it comes down to a difference in interpretation of "any
deviation." IIUC, you meant to allow pure extensions, but John didn't
read it that way.
-- 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