Re: [boost] What to do about std::binary_function and std::unary_function?

Subject: Re: [boost] What to do about std::binary_function and std::unary_function?
From: Rainer Deyke (rainerd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-06 04:32:19

On 05.05.2016 21:18, Nick Matteo wrote:
> 3) A modification of approach 2: instead of manually adding the
> typedefs everywhere, make a base class to provide the typedefs
> somewhere in Boost. Then replace inheritance from
> std::binary_function<Arg1, Arg2, Result> with inheritance from
> boost::binary_function<Arg1, Arg2, Result>.

3a) Provide boost::binary_function<Arg1, Arg2, Result>, which inherits 
std::binary_function<Arg1, Arg2, Result> if it is available, and 
reimplements std::binary_function otherwise.

This seems like the least intrusive, most backwards-compatible solution. 
  Any old code that (for some pathological reason) depends on the use of 
std::binary_function will continue to function so long as 
std::binary_function exists.  Any code that merely depends on the 
typedefs that std::binary_function provides will continue to function 
indefinitely.  All existing boost code can be updated with a simple 
search-and-replace, with no decrease in code readability or compactness. 
  And moving from (3a) to (3) would be a simple change to a single file, 
should this change ever become necessary or desirable.

-- 
Rainer Deyke (rainerd_at_[hidden])