Re: [boost] Curiousity question

Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-12 20:20:02

On 10/12/2016 7:17 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 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.

How would you fall back to support boost::shared_ptr ?

>
> (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.)

So your interface(s) need to support both in the meantime ?