Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] using name boost::in_place -- need your opinion/advice
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-30 18:30:36
On 05/30/2016 08:46 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> 2016-05-30 12:04 GMT+02:00 Vladimir Batov:
>> Would not it be long-term proper to align boost::optional with
>> std::optional? If that requires renaming boost in-place factories, then
>> that might be a better long-term solution.
> I read your suggestion as "rename current in-place factories form
> boost::in_place to something else". Is that right?
I suspect that might be an unpleasant, unfortunate but essential move as
Boost (or any other lib) IMO cannot possibly be changing,
re-interpreting, re-implementing std concepts. The std lib is the center
of C++ universe so to speak. Everything else are the ripples. If the
"ripples" clash with std, they need to adjust.
If boost::in_place is renamed to, say, in_place_factory, then the user
inconvenience will be minimal with global rename. IMO.
I understand that that might be beyond your boost::optional
task/framework but I feel that'd be the right thing to do for the Boost
ecosystem as a whole.
> ... I am pretty sure the in-place factories
> will never be standardized, as we have a superior solution in C++11: tags
> and perfect-forwarding of functions.
More reasons to do the right thing, i.e. to restore the std conformance.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk