Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-05 12:57:34
Le 05/11/13 13:50, Klaim - Joël Lamotte a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Gavin Lambert <gavinl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Do you think that some of those assumptions are flawed?
> Another example is in MSVC11 (and I assume is still in MSVC12) there is a
> minor bug in std::chrono which makes it impractical to use in code that
> needs high precision of time.
> This forced me to use boost::chrono, which forced me to use boost::thread
> instead of std::thread because the time-related interface aren't compatible
> and require tons of casting.
Andrey Semashev is working on this sens, to allow std::chrono interface
and other in Boost.Sync, but I don't know if/when this could be usable
> Having alternative implementations of the standard, in particular when it's
> mostly the same code whatever the target plateform, is a good thing.
Recently, I have added a internal name space csbl Common Std Boost Lib,
that allows to use either std or boost for some classes (See
boost/thread/csbl in trunk).
While doing some of the adaptations, I find some problems:
1. specialization of templates in std or boost must be explicitly done
on std or boost not on csbl :(
2. any function used any boost class in the interface can not be changed
to use csbl without breaking the interface.
I would like to know what other have already done to try to use std or
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk