Re: [boost] Curiousity question

Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-13 04:39:58

On 10/13/2016 4:21 AM, Oswin Krause wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.

I gather then that your library is for programmers using C+11 on up.

>
> 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.

In other words you would roll your own class template ?

>
> Best,
> Oswin