Re: [boost] Cxx dual library

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.
>
> http://www.boost.org/doc/html/move/emulation_limitations.html

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.