Re: [boost] Curiousity question

Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-12 22:27:47

On 13/10/2016 15:04, Edward Diener wrote:
> The end-user of your library, especially if it is meant for public
> consumption, might find it odd <g> that some interfaces use
> std::shared_ptr and others use boost::shared_ptr. Even more so if he is
> using one or the other of the two consistently throughout his own usage
> of your library in whatever executable or library he is working on. But
> I understand why you would prefer your own way. As long as you document
> what should be used it is easy enough for the end-user of your library
> to adapt successfully.

Typically I'll use a typedef in any public API anyway, such that 
consumers will just use FooPtr (or auto) and thus never need to type 
shared_ptr themselves.

Or I'll use a handle/body pimpl idiom so that the only shared_ptrs they 
see are the single private member of the handle type, and again they 
don't need to see them.

So in that regard, they shouldn't need to care which one I chose to use.