Subject: Re: [boost] Cxx dual library
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-04 14:10:38
On 6/4/2016 12:16 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Le 03/06/2016 à 18:46, Edward Diener a écrit :
>>> I understand the advantage for the developer, but not for the user.
>>> Could you elaborate about the non-intrusiveness by ....?
>> The user does not have to go to any elaborate means to use the
>> functionality of the library as far as changing any code in the Boost
>> implementation or C++ standard implementation of a dual library. Yes,
>> of course, the user has to use the constructs of CXXD to program so
>> that the Boost or C++ standard implementation of the library is being
>> used, instead of directly using a particular implementation of a dual
>> library. But for each dual library supported this means the same set
>> of fairly small changes.
> I meant, what is the advantage for the user of the macro solution
> respect to the approach I suggested?
Do you mean:
"* Have you considered adding a new namespace and import the definitions
from either boost or the standard library, so that the use of macros
will be reduced and adding some non intrusive adaptation would be
possible? I have addressed this problem from a different perspective
What do you think of this approach?"
I don't see any documentation regarding your perspective. Care to
explain it ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk