Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Oswin Krause (Oswin.Krause_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-13 04:21:47
On 2016-10-13 00:58, 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:
> 2) Use std::shared_ptr
From my point of view, this is the best option and I would go so far as
to say that this holds for almost all boost libraries that were included
in c++11. My main argument is that it makes it easier for new projects
to introduce boost, as it fits better into the c++11 environment. I
agree that for most libraries, the boost version are a bit better or
have a few more features, but for me this does not outweigh the cost of
incompatbility with standard c++11 coding habits. I can not force a
project to adopt all of boost even if they are only interested in a tiny
fragment of it.
Otherwise, if there are deep concerns about compatibility with boost, i
would try to introduce a policy or simply use template arguments which
just assume it is a shared_ptr of some kind.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk