Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-31 14:09:53

On 31 Oct 2013 at 10:40, Marshall Clow wrote:

> > will get upset. I would also personally count lack of adding direct
> > C++11 support as equal to lack of bug fixing, but I appreciate that
> > will be controversial (what is C++11 support anyway???) :)
> A good question.
> For example, what does it mean to add C++11 support to Boost.Array?
> #if __cplusplus >= 201103L
> #warning "You should really think about using std::array instead of boost::array."
> #endif
> :-) :-)

Or better still, simply silently map in std::array as boost::array
and definitely don't mention it in any documentation :) After all,
library code ought to be surprising, keep these programmers on their

More seriously though, I do wish more rvalue ref support was present
in the older Boost libraries. I have, occasionally, bumped into
situations where passing in a move-only type causes barf and I have
to use a shared_ptr wrapper to work around it. That's a problem with
any old C++ codebase of course, but it would be nice if Boost had a
formal process in place to strongly incentivise minimum necessary
C++11 upgrades of older Boost libraries.

That said, I appreciate adding move only type support often involves
a complete rearchitect of internals. That may of course not be a bad


Currently unemployed and looking for work.
Work Portfolio:

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