Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-08 19:17:44
On 8 February 2018 at 09:16, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> On 02/08/18 17:27, degski via Boost wrote:
>> On 8 February 2018 at 03:20, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> The same is possible with library components, although it may incur more
>>> overhead. In case of boost/std::function, I would use boost::function or
>>> even a custom function wrapper internally (the latter is useful to remove
>>> the dependency on Boost.Function). I don't see any advantage of using
>> Using std::function has one advantage, though, it's standardised.
> In the context of this discussion, it's irrelevant.
It seems only logical to me to decrease coupling with other boost
libraries as time moves on, to use the std-equivalent of certain boost
libraries... Subtle differences exist (between std- and boost-versions of
certain libs), i.e. random, file-system and others... and this is a pita...
IMHO, boost libs that state that they are let's say C++14, should use
std::array, std::chrono, std::random (and std::function), etc... and
decrease coupling with other parts of boost...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk