Re: [boost] Cxx dual library

Subject: Re: [boost] Cxx dual library
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-04 10:47:05

Am 04.06.2016 2:56 nachm. schrieb "Edward Diener" <eldiener_at_[hidden]>:
>
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.boost.org/doc/html/move/emulation_limitations.html
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>

I completely agree, thanks for summing up what I wanted to say ;)

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost