Re: [boost] List of C++ 11 only Boost libraries and their status?

Subject: Re: [boost] List of C++ 11 only Boost libraries and their status?
From: Pete Bartlett (pete_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-24 17:05:34

M.A. van den Berg wrote:
>If the modularisation of boost takes shape then if would be useful to have
C++11 libraries NOT >unnecessarily depend on the boost version of C++11
libraries in order to reduce dependencies.
>
>What's your view on that?
>
>E.g. if I wanted to make a "boost C++11 random library" then that could
build on top of the >C++11 random lib instead of the boost random lib. This
would reduce dependencies and make the >library work standalone on a C++11
compiler.

I want Boost to remain fresh and fertile. For me this means keeping the
stream of people willing and able to contribute to Boost coming. Therefore
I'd want to give authors a free hand, as much as possible. E.g. if a new
library came along that needed a tuple facility, they should feel free to
just use <tuple> / std::tuple rather than being obliged to template on tuple
type (or more sophisticatedly, use the Boost.BindLib library that Niall says
is around the corner), just in case someone is stuck with boost::tuple. If
someone else is stranded on VS2005 (or whatever) and comes along with a
patch to backport support to boost::tuple, then great.

For existing libraries on the other hand, it seems wrong to break
backwards-compatibility without a really good reason so if a library is
c++98 now, why not leave it that way. If someone thinks a particular domain
can be done better using c++11 facilities, then I think a "v2" of the
library makes sense.

Just 2c,
Pete