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: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-16 12:14:04

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:09 AM, peterkochlarsen via Boost 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.
>>
>> (Interesting aside: That functionality above was even, and still is
>> used, in certain Microsoft projects, where boost::shared_ptr is used
>> instead of std::shared_ptr).
>>
>> The same goes for other Boost libraries like Boost.Thread. They:
>> - May have features not in the C++ standard library equivalent
>> - May be evolving past the current C++ standard
>> - Are in use by actual projects and shouldn't be removed
>>
>> Glen
>
> I am not talking about removal, just a note that there is a standard
> replacement and a brief cap on their differences. Most people should prefer
> using the standard library, reconsidering if they really need the
> array-version of shared_ptr. By the way, I am a happy user of boost::thread,
> and have not taken the time to move to std::thread yet.

There is no "should" here. I let most people decide for themselves
what they prefer.
e.g. You may intend to move to std::thread, that's fine. Others may
choose to continue to use boost::thread and boost::shared_ptr
because they may not want to keep switching between std and boost
for whatever reason(s).

(In some cases, those reasons could be as simple as wanting newer
features in Boost libraries that evolve faster. In other cases,
it might be as simple as their organization updates Boost versions
faster than they migrate to new compiler versions).

As for documenting that there exists a standard version and describing
the differences, sure: I can see the value in that.

Glen