Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] From an user to developers
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-10 16:19:46

On 10 June 2012 13:07, Stéphane Vandenbogaerde <svdbg_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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?
> Yes.

There is a pretty good history overview per version published at
Plus, there are logs in SVN.

>>> 2. the motivation of their library
>> Do you have any examples handy ?
> A good example is Boost.Lambda :

I meant libraries which lack of such section.
AFAIK, motivation section is a common convention in Boost, so if any
library lacks, I think bug report on Trac would be handy.

>>> 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.
> shared_ptr...

IMO, it is purpose of the C++03, C++ TR1 and C++11
documents to reveal differences. "Read the Code, Luke"

> Boost.Locale

It is not a library specified in the C++ standard or TRs.

>>> 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 ?

Not at all.

>> 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 ?

No availability of C++11 compiler.

Plus, "[boost::shared_ptr] implementation conforms to the TR1 specification",
but std::shared_ptr is C++11 implementation.

Generally, to be on safe side, if your code works
with the boost::shared_ptr/TR1,
it should work with the std::shared_ptr/C++11 too,
but not necessarily the other way around.

> Does he have to read all the doc to find out the differences ?

and the C++ standard, and TR1.

> Does he have to do same for EACH library conflicting with C+11 ?

There are no conflicts between Boost and C++ std.
Boost, among others, provide a distinct implementation of libraries
specified in C++ standard(s) or TRs.

>> 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)."

IMHO, you have misinterpreted his words.
I believe, you can't expect Boost project to remove Boost.Array from its source
code for as long as there are users who
1) want to use Boost.Array Boost libraries
2) don not want or can not use C++11 compiler

>> 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.

No comments.

Best regards,

Mateusz Loskot,

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