Re: [boost] Curiousity question

Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-13 10:56:21

On 10/13/16 17:33, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 10:00 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>
>> There is always a list of supported targets. If that list includes a
>> target without C++11 then I'll probably use boost::shared_ptr. That is
>> what I'm doing in Boost.Log, which supports C++03.
>
> I understand that and I think that is the general consensus. But what
> might happen, not that it seems to bother anyone much but me <g>, is
> that your library, which supports C++03, is nevertheless "compiled" by
> some programmer(s) using C++11 in their own project. Then their normal
> use of std::shared_ptr ( because it's there and naturally supported by
> their compiler implementation in C++11 mode ) doesn't really "play well"
> with your own use of boost::shared_ptr. Of course you may well say
> "what's the big deal, when you interface with my library you will use
> boost::shared_ptr and have a dependency on it, while otherwise you have
> chosen to use std::shared_ptr and have a dependency on your compiler's
> implementation. I see no problem with that." And technically you would
> be right, but practically the user of your library might feel
> differently about it.

Well, that's a nuisance for the user, no doubt. But that's the 
consequence of the chosen balance between my burden as the library 
maintainer and user's convenience. Having configurable library interface 
can be a headache of itself, it doesn't look like a clear cut solution.