Subject: Re: [boost] std::auto_ptr in public interfaces
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-20 16:48:37
On 05/20/17 19:29, Daniela Engert via Boost wrote:
> Am 20.05.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrey Semashev via Boost:
>> On 05/20/17 18:45, Daniela Engert via Boost wrote:
>>> Am 20.05.2017 um 17:28 schrieb Andrey Semashev via Boost:
>>>> Personally, I would prefer libraries to switch to boost::unique_ptr and
>>>> leave std::auto_ptr interfaces available (but deprecated) for backward
>>> why not just going straight to std::unique_ptr?
>> Because you would lose compatibility with C++03, which I presume the
>> authors of the libraries want to keep.
> But you are proposing to keep the auto_ptr-based interface for that
> purpose, too.
I'm proposing to keep it for backward compatibility, deprecated, with
the intention to remove it at some point. The up-to-date interface would
use boost::unique_ptr, for C++03 and C++11 and so on.
> I don't see the benefit of two solutions for the same
> problems sitting side-by-side. Users who want to stick with
> std::auto_ptr just keep on using the current interface, and users who
> need to get rid of std::auto_ptr in all of their code have to find a
> solution for their entire code base how to deal with that. Insisting on
> yet another non-standard option to interface with Boost is not
> necessarily what these people have in mind, imho.
I don't see another option if one (a Boost library developer or a Boost
user) wants to keep his code stable across all C++ versions. If the
standard library is not portable across different C++ versions (it is
not) then you either lock yourself to particular C++ versions or simply
do not use the standard library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk