Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-09 19:08:16

AMDG

On 02/09/2018 11:45 AM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/02/2018 08:50, Raffi Enficiaud via Boost wrote:
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I have a technical question I do not know how to address, and I would
>> like to know how people deal with this.
>>
>> To put things in the background: boost.test uses heavily boost::function
>> and boost::bind, however I would like to use in some circumstances
>> std::function and std::bind, which are, for instance, variadic.
> 
> Trying to get back to the case in point... is there any reason not to
> support both in the binary library?
> 
> ie
> 
> virtual int operator()( boost::function<int ()> const& F ) = 0;
> virtual int operator()( std::function<int ()> const& F ) = 0;
> 
> One of these can presumably simply call the other internally since a
> boost::function should be storable in a std::function and vice versa?
> 

In this particular case, there shouldn't be any need
to provide both explicitly as boost::function and
std::function are convertible to each other.

In general, I think that:
- interfaces that take boost/std::xxx as a parameter
  should accept both.
- interfaces that return boost/std::xxx are hard
  and I don't know how to handle them.
- The internal implementation can pick one or the
  other.  If you want ABI compatibility between C++03
  and C++11, and the object crosses an ABI boundary,
  that means always using boost::xxx.

For Boost.Test my overall recommendation is:
always use boost::function, but use std::bind
when it is available.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe