Subject: Re: [boost] [partly OT] Re: [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-16 18:22:23
Oswin Krause wrote:
> > What severe interoperability issues?
> Interoperability issues between code that is designed using the std::
> versions and code using the boost libraries. Starting with: mixing boost
> and std libraries as it was intended to be.
> boost::shared_ptr is an example that one can get to work ,
> however it is not straight forward(look at all the slightly wrong code out
> there) and requires sacrifices in performance. Most other libraries are
> harder and the situation is often even undefined. For example, I have no
> idea what will happen when I use std::this_thread inside a thread started
> by boost::thread.
This specific case should work; even though the standard doesn't say what
will happen if you use it in threads not started by std::thread, all
implementations ought to support OS threads started by pthread_create or
CreateThread as well. Doesn't matter if Boost.Thread is used.
> Thus it is hard for me to write code that is agnostic to the threading
> library used. However, if i settle for boost::thread i also have to use
> boost::chrono. I could use preprocessor macros, but if I have to deliver a
> library, I have to make a hard decision.
This is a real problem, but your desire
> I sometimes wish those libraries got never adopted for this reason.
is baffling. You do know that boost::shared_ptr predates std::shared_ptr by
many years (the page above is from 2003) and is in fact the reason there is
std::shared_ptr? That we made std::shared_ptr happen? How on Earth not
adopting it would have made things better?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk