Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 23:36:48
On 05/15/2015 02:00 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> But I still claim that if a maintainer is maintaining their library
> to the ideal level, full STL11 usage is something they have done, are
> doing, or are planning to do soon, or alternatively are making a C++
> 11/14 total rewrite of their library. As a corollary, those
> maintainers not fully embracing STL11 usage are not maintaining their
> libraries as well as they should.
I strongly disagree. Say, program_options is a tiny library solving a very specific problem,
and apparently seeing some use.
There's absolutely no need to rewrite it using lambda all over, convert to std::function, or
anything like that. It will probably hurts users, rather than helping.
> I could name libraries and maintainers right now who are reaching
> this ideal and which are not, but I'll leave them volunteer
> themselves if they choose.
I volunteer to reject your criteria of 'ideal maintainer', I'm afraid.
-- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk