Re: Potential project: Resolving boost::chrono conflicts with std::chrono

From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-09 13:57:54

 > Obviously cxxd does not have to go to great lengths to make this work 
for the end-user,

Just picked this quote but it applies to more: The use-case for cxxd is 
another than what is intended for a boost-wide solution. As you write 
yourself: It is great for one-off code.
In most projects using Boost you don't manually link a boost lib, but 
use CMake (or similar). Having more variants means more switches and 
complicate the process

 >So you want to all Boost libraries which currently support 
boost::chrono to also support std::chrono in c++11 mode or higher with 
additional interfaces for using std::chrono ? Sure, go ahead if you 
think that is viable. That's what everybody currently does now anyway. I 
personally do not relish that sort of work, which is why I created cxxd 
in the first place.

No. What I and Atharva propose is essentially: `namespace boost::chrono{ 
using namespace std::chrono; }`. All libraries which use boost::chrono 
will now automatically work with std::chrono and users can use 
boost::chrono or std::chrono to call into any boost library.

The idea is: (Almost?) all types in std::chrono have exact equivalents 
in boost which can simply be used and the boost types can be removed. 
Additional functionality provided by Boost (if there is any) should be 
changed to rely on std::chrono types (if they even need to, due to the 
aliasing above)

What I added was to NOT provide alternatives to C++11 and simply require 
them which avoids the need to create variants for the different standards.