Re: [epochs] Proposal for an epoch-based organization of Boost libraries

From: Joaquin M López Muñoz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-27 21:09:05

El 27/05/2020 a las 10:32, Edward Diener via Boost escribió:
>
> I think the idea of a set of Boost libraries:
>
> 1) which do not have a C++ standard library equivalent
> 2) which do use one or more Boost libraries which do have a C++ 
> standard library equivalent
> 3) producing an alternative version of an individual library which 
> uses the C++ standard library equivalent(s)
>
> would be useful for end-users who want to use Boost in a C++11 on up 
> environment where
> C++ standard equivalent libraries are being used. This is not a 
> criticism in any way of any Boost
> libraries which have C++ standard library equivalents but rather an 
> acknowledgment of the fact,
> suggested by cxx_dual originally, that end-users in C++11 on up 
> environments most probably
> want to be able to consistently use the C++ standard libraries rather 
> than to have to mix their use
> of such libraries with Boost equivalent libraries.

This is nicely aligned with the gols of the epochs proposal. I've just 
published a report that seems
relevant for this conversation:

https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.MD%c2 (

> But of course who would do the work, even given that a consensus were 
> formed that
> this would be valuable to Boost in general, of creating alternative 
> versions of all those Boost
> libraries, since many of those libraries are barely maintained as is 
> in regards to issues and PRs,
> much less alternative versions meeting such a goal ? 

Firstly, we're far from having a consensus on this :-) That said, 
there's really no need to
create alternative libs as long as some abstraction layer is plugged in, 
using something
like cxx_dual for instance. In many cases this is routine work, but I 
agree with you the job
is up to wiling authors (or the Boost Community Maintenance Team). 
Epochs merely
try to make this effort more valuable/desireable from a PR point of 
view, as they give
transparency about what's going on internally.

If someone is willing to give this a shot (Boost.TTI?) I'd gladly 
volunteer to do a PR for such
an abstraction layer. In most cases it's a no brainer (which is not to 
say it wil be done
automagically). Removing C++03 support is even easier, FWIW.

Joaquín M López Muñoz