Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Fit] About supported C++ version
From: paul Fultz (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-15 04:52:52
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 2:59 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>I was wondering if Boost.Fit shouldn't be a library as Boost.Hana,
a library that makes use of the last C++ version and avoids as
much portability issues as possible.
I think portability is important, especially for a boost library. And since there is already Hana, I think there is room for a portable library, as well.
>Which C++14 features will make the library simpler?
There really isn't any C++14 features that would simplify the library.
>Which adopted C++17 features will make the library simpler?
Inline variables and constexpr lambdas will help simplify the static function macros. Also, fold expressions might be useful as well.
>Which other C++ features would be missing?
Well, it doesn't need features, whats really missing is better diagnostics from the compiler.
>Paul I guess that you are using a C++11 compiler and want to
support this version, could you confirm?
Yes I am. Furthermore, there may be other library authors who would like to utilize the functionality in Fit, that may need the same level of portability as well. So they would have to rewrite some of whats done in Fit if I were to due away with portability, which kind of defeats the purpose of reusability with a library.
Also, the work for portability has already been done, so it seems foolish to just throw it away. I don't think portability is hugely detrimental to the library. It is important to note that the ideal solution is chosen on the better compilers(which is usually clang). Furthermore, I plan to take advantage of C++17 features in the library when they become ready as well.
>Boost-users mailing list
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk