Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-15 11:31:33
On 14 May 2015 at 22:06, Edward Diener wrote:
> > Most of it is very small stuff, but requires human intervention to
> > fix. I certainly found a small truck load of minor breakages in AFIO
> > due to poor understanding of the STL. I learned a lot actually. My
> > code rigour improved enormously.
> It is then not a matter of not being able to use an STL11 equivalent but
> only of the work involved to do so. If there is a reason to use
> functionality provided by C++11/C++14 a Boost library may still decide
> to do so. There is nothing technically holding back that library from
> doing so.
There are good ways and bad ways of supporting C++ 11/14 in an 03
library. Macros which swap boost for std equivalents and doing
nothing extra are just about the worst way of doing it (ABI
> I do understand your point of view about new libraries using C++11/C++14
> in order to cut down on dependencies of the equivalent functionality in
> Boost. I do not think your point of view is lost on anyone following
> this thread and your arguments. But that is a decision which each
> library developer will make.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk