Subject: Re: [boost] From an user to developers
From: Stéphane Vandenbogaerde (svdbg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-10 08:07:15
Le 08/06/2012 18:57, Mateusz Loskot a écrit :
>> 1. the history of all releases, with notes for each release
> You mean a changelog per library?
>> 2. the motivation of their library
> Do you have any examples handy ?
A good example is Boost.Lambda :
Boost.Iostreams could do better...
So as Boost.Locale.
>> 3. when they offer services similar to the ones provided by the STL,
> why did they feel the need to complete it, and what are
> the differences
> Same, examples?
All the TR1 librairies.
>> 3. for the relevant libraries, their status regarding the new features of C++11
>> (are they obsolete ? do they remain some differences ? ex : Array, Chrono, DateTime),
>> especially the ones related to TR1
> AFAIK, there is no such concept as obsolete Boost library if
> confronted with C++ standard libraries.
Is this an ideological point of view ?
> The fact that C++ std has got std::shared_ptr does not make
> boost::shared_ptr deprecated.
What makes one use boost_shared_ptr instead of std::shared_ptr ?
Does he have to read all the doc to find out the differences ?
Does he have to do same for EACH library conflicting with C+11 ?
Because there are many ones :
> boost::shared_ptr stays here and will be offered as an alternative
> implementation, same boost::array and similar.
I asked Nicolas Josuttis about Array, and here what he replied to me :
"Yes, boost.array is obsolete with C++11.
Will see what I can do to describe it (limited time currently)."
> Boost is huge and it is impractical to ask developers to follow single
> convention of formats and tools, fight against personal preferences of
> developers, etc. So, I have taken that point.
Well, Boost appears to me as a nice label for a library.
Maybe the developpers could do an effort.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk