Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-30 19:44:24
On 30/10/2016 07:34, Edward Diener wrote:
> What I gathered from my original OP from everyone's response is that
> 1) Programmers would rather hard-code a choice of using a Boost library
> or its C++ standard library equivalent in their code based on whether
> their code was meant to be used for C++11 or above or not
> 2) Roll their own hand-made system for choosing based on their
> individual needs
> rather than use a library like cxx_dual which automatically makes the
> choice of whether to use a Boost library or its C++ standard equivalent
> based on what is available at compile time.
FWIW, I think that's mostly due to unfamiliarity with the library, and
not an indication that more people wouldn't have used it had they been
aware of it.
Although as the std and Boost implementations are not identical in many
respects, having code switch from one to another based on environment
might make people nervous, unless they feel "in control" of the
switching mechanism and can adjust its choices.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk