Re: [boost] Curiousity question

Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-12 19:17:17

On 12.10.2016 18:58, Edward Diener wrote:
> I would like to ask a design question for any Boost developers or
> anyone on this mailing list who might care to answer.
>
> You are designing or working on a library, perhaps for Boost, perhaps
> for fun, and part of the design of the library has some public
> functionality taking a shared pointer as input. You:
>
> 1) Use boost::shared_ptr
> 2) Use std::shared_ptr
> 3) Use both boost::shared_ptr and std::shared_ptr with the same
> functionality
> 4) Use neither, you roll your own shared pointer-like functionality
> 5) You don't lke shared pointers and use raw pointers instead
>
> I really am curious about this. I haven't put any limitation on your
> library or made any presumption on who your library is for, on
> purpose. Thanks for anyone answering !

At this point in time (with GCC 6.2 as my default compiler in my
development environment), I'd use std::shared_ptr, and fall back to
boost::shared_ptr for environments without C++11 support.

(In practice it's often the other way around. Consider Boost.Python: it
has been supporting boost::shared_ptr for a long time, and I just now
managed to add support for std::shared_ptr. I expect to eventually
deprecate support for boost::shared_ptr, but that will still take a few
years.)

    Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...