Re: [boost] [release][1.52.0] Release Notes

Subject: Re: [boost] [release][1.52.0] Release Notes
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-12 15:51:31

On Oct 12, 2012 8:35 PM, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <
vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Le 12/10/12 18:18, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
>
>> Hmm, I don't really like this. I don't want to add a dependency on
>> Boost.Chrono in Boost.Log, which depends on Boost.DateTime anyway.
>
> Hi,
> Why you don't want to depend on Boost.Chrono?

Because I want to minimize dependencies (especially, binary build
dependencies).

Unlike Boost.DateTime, Boost.Chrono is not needed by my library, so this
would really be a false dependency.

>> Why
>> are these interfaces deprecated?
>
> These interfaces are deprecated since 1.50. IMO the chrono based
interfaces replace quite well the date_time based interface, so if the
functionality is provided with a better interface, it is normal to
deprecate the old one.

Yes, Boost.Chrono-based interface provides a nice alternative to the
Boost.DateTime-based one. But that doesn't make the latter useless. I think
it still has its use, at least for backward compatibility and dependency
reduction, like in my case.

>> Why not keep them as they are?
>>
>>
> I could keep them, but I would prefer to reduce the code to maintain.

I understand that the dual interface adds more redundancy but does it
really require active maintenance? The code has been there for quite some
time, it's well tested and doesn't require additional work.