From: ATHARVA VEER (atharva.d.veer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-16 04:17:39
Greetings to all,
So where are we at with this? Have we reached to any conclusion yet?
@Mr. Howard Hinnant what do you think would be best?
Thanks to all for discussions!
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, 06:31 Howard Hinnant via Boost, <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Possible project for someone looking for a boost project to contribute to:
> boost::chrono was created soon after std::chrono was proposed and served
> people well for experimenting with this library prior to migrating to
> C++11. Fast forward 8 years: Now we have two competing chrono libraries:
> boost::chrono and std::chrono. And it is not rare for people to use
> non-chrono boost libraries, which in turn use boost::chrono, and for those
> same people to use std::chrono. Invariably what happens is they get
> horribly complicated compile-time errors which boil down to: boost::chrono
> does not interoperate with std::chrono. And these errors often come from
> deep within libraries which people are simply trying to use.
> The pitch: boost::chrono, and other boost::libs needs to defer to
> std::chrono for C++11 and later. This would make boost significantly
> easier to use. This is likely a multi-project effort, and I donât even
> have a concrete strategy in mind. This is a problem in search of a
> solution, not vice-versa. And I often hear of enthusiastic people who want
> to jump in and lend a helping hand. I think this would be a terrific area
> to point such talent towards.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk