Subject: Re: [boost] Cxx dual library
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-04 08:22:39
On 6/4/2016 7:20 AM, Bjorn Reese wrote:
> On 06/03/2016 08:30 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
>> You are not being very specific about the problems you encountered, so
>> it is really hard to respond to them.
I am aware that both sides of a dual library, like 'move', may be
different in some respects. That doesn't invalidate using CXXD for
functionality that is syntactically the same and functionally the same.
I did mention a number of times in the CXXD doc that CXXD_HAS_STD_XXX,
for dual library xxx, can be used by end-users of CXXD to program any
differences if necessary.
I am not completely averse to using macro programming to smooth over any
differences between both sides of a particular dual library, if it can
be done. Obviously any dual library header file can be updated to do
that but I would really like to keep any such one-off changes to a minimum.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk