Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-13 10:54:21
On 10/13/2016 10:31 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> The lack of interest in even seeing what cxx_dual was about or trying
>> it out, even when I attempted to make it as easy as possible for those
>> who dislike seeing macros in their own code, does not really
>> personally bother me since I write software for my own pleasure or
>> practical use unless I am being paid to do it as a consultant.
> The basic issue with a Boost library that allows one to switch between
> Boost and standard components is this: the usual motivation for using a
> standard component when available is to avoid a dependency on Boost. But
> if you don't have Boost, you also don't have the Boost library that
> would allow you to switch.
Good point !
I probably did not make the argument well enough that even when you have
Boost you might prefer the C++ standard equivalent to avoid the Boost
dependency. In other words, "having Boost" and "depending on Boost", for
a particular library, are conceptually two different things, at least in
Also the decision-making process in cxx_dual depends only on Boost
Config. Other optional macro support in cxx_dual depends on PP and VMD.
Tests depend on some other Boost libraries even when Boost is not chosen
as a dual library. I can probably eleiminate the latter ( except for
lightweight test ) if I want to.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk