Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Cxx dual library
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-04 08:55:00

On 6/4/2016 8:02 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> Am 04.06.2016 1:17 nachm. schrieb "Bjorn Reese" <breese_at_[hidden]>:
>> 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.
> Along that line, std::decay might not do what you expect.

I have no doubt there are occasional functional differences between a
Boost library and its C++ standard equivalent even when the syntax is
the same. if you are saying that CXXD by its nature hides those
differences and therefore is problematic to use I can understand that
point of view. I have made a note to discuss this in the documentation.

I think this is very much similar to programmers using, let's say, the
Boost type_traits library in their C++03 application and then deciding
to compile using C++11 and switching to the C++ standard type traits
library. Obviously they can continue to use Boost type_traits in their
C++11 application but if they do decide to switch they have to look at
what that entails.

I do understand your argument that is safer to just choose using a Boost
library or its C++ standard equivalent library in C++11 code and be done
with it. But I also understand end-users being annoyed when some
software library ( whether Boost or elsewhere ) is using the opposite
dual library in their interfaces from what they are otherwise already
using extensively in their own code.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at