Re: [boost] [optional] using name boost::in_place -- need your opinion/advice

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.