Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-09 06:48:26

Am 09.08.19 um 08:23 schrieb degski via Boost:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 04:01, Howard Hinnant via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> The pitch: boost::chrono, and other boost::libs needs to defer to
>> std::chrono for C++11 and later.
> This library by Edward achieves the above not only for boost::chrono, but
> Boost-wide: . From the date of the
> last commit, one can deduce, though, that this does not cover C++17 [but
> that might not be so urgent/relevant].
> Docs: .

As it was often discussed for Boost to "switch to C++11", why burden the
maintainers with the old cruft?

My proposal would be: Implement Boost.Chrono in terms of std::chrono.
(Just seen Atharva said the same)
This requires:
- Identify differences
- Replace Boost.Chrono types with typedefs to same std::chrono types (or
maybe just using namespace std::chrono inside boost::chrono?)
- Adapt functions only contained in Boost.Chrono

As to "dropping C++98 compatibility" I repeat previous arguments:
- People using latest Boost probably don't use pre-C++11 compilers
- No guarantee about C++98-compatibility was ever made, each library is
free to drop such support at any point
- This support would trickle down to dependent libraries

On the proposed alternative via cxxd: This won't work. If Boost
internals use CXXD they will end up using either std::chrono or
boost::chrono which will result in API and/or ABI incompatibility.
Compare this to scoped enum usage in Boost.Filesystem in the API which
made the library compiled in pre-C++11 mode unusable to user code in
post-C++11 code (and vice versa) and required subsequent fixes to
work-around that.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at