Subject: Re: [boost] Anyone is interested in being review manager of âApplicationâ?
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-08 12:44:50
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> I think Boost needs forking into a C++ 14 only edition and a C++ 03
> compatible edition, with the C++ 14 only edition exclusively based on
> the C++ 14 STL where possible (and not Boost). I also think we need a
> three stage peer review process instead of the present single stage.
> I also think we need much tougher requirements for entry into Boost.
I'd be worried that this would inhibit improvements to C++14
components that have a Boost equivalent. Consider if this approach was
taken with C++11, and we had a Boost version that used C++11
components, like std::shared_ptr, where possible. Two of the
improvements we have for fundamentals TS1 and TS2 are based on
features that we added to boost::shared_ptr, boost::make_shared,
boost::allocate_shared (Peter's change to std::shared_ptr -
http://isocpp.org/files/papers/N3920.html - and my forms of
std::make_shared and std::allocate_shared -
Then there is the matter of broken vendor implementations. VC10, VC11,
VC12 all have broken (or suboptimal) implementations of many C++
standard library functions. Not everyone upgrades to the latest
versions of those compilers, either. I worked at Microsoft until
February 2014, and even as late as 2014, there were teams in certain
parts (OSD, ASG) that were using VC10 and VC11 (and one that still
cared about Boost 1.41). It makes sense to have Boost equivalents that
are non-broken, better implemented, etc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk