Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 19:23:35
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
> No, I'm saying it's up to the maintainer to maintain their library. I
> believe that means making it able to use as much STL11 as possible if
> they want to keep it fresh and relevant. Or else they completely
> rewrite it in C++ 11/14. I don't mind which.
Are you saying that if a Boost library uses boost::function, it's up to
that library's author to make it able to use std::function instead?
I think that if the option is available at all it should be up to
boost::function to map to std::function, but other Boost libraries would
still #include "boost/function.hpp" and refer to it as boost::function.
-- Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk