Re: [boost] [partly OT] Re: [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?

Subject: Re: [boost] [partly OT] Re: [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: peterkochlarsen (peter.koch.larsen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-16 07:20:47

Boost - Dev mailing list wrote
> Glen Fernandes wrote:
>> peterkochlarsen wrote:
>> > Also an unmaintained library should be marked as such as should 
>> > libraries that are deprecated, replaced by standard C++ features 
>> > (shared_ptr comes to mind)
>>
>> shared_ptr (or Boost.SmartPointers in general) is not unmaintained, and
>> is 
>> not deprecated.
>>
>> It actually has been evolving past the C++11 std::shared_ptr.
>> For example, boost::shared_ptr supported array forms in 1.53 and this was 
>> eventually added to C++ in C++17.
> 
> And, since we managed to not get the array form of make_shared into C++17, 
> boost::make_shared will remain relevant a few more years.
> 
> This reminds me of the saying "looking for the lost keys under the street 
> light." We have a problem, what can we do? I know, let's deprecate and 
> remove boost::shared_ptr! 

I did not intend to imply that boost::shared_ptr was a problematic part of
boost. I just expect that for most of us, we should prefer std::shared_ptr.
Thus, a note should be put in the documentation that there is also a
standard shared_ptr.

I just took a few minutes to look at the documentation and see that this
information is already present, so shared_ptr has no problems in that
regard. I just would prefer if this documentation was put at a more
prominent position.

For shared_ptr, there is another problem, however. I went to the track list
and found a number of open bugs. Not, I guess, because shared_ptr is buggy,
but because the bugs are not maintained. As an example, the newest bug
#12604 is still marked as open: I guess it should not be. The same is the
case for the second bug I examined (8485). Also bugs such as 6829 (slow in
MSVC) should not be marked as such. If a function is slower than it could be
it should be marked as an enhancement/feature request, not as a bug. Except,
of course, if the function is so slow that it is absolutely useless. 

/Peter

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/review-queue-What-to-do-about-the-library-review-queue-tp4692273p4692340.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.