Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-22 03:17:27

On 9/21/2020 10:00 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Gavin Lambert wrote:
>> There's already a "std": [ "tr1"/"proposal" ] field, perhaps this
>> should be extended rather than replaced?
>> While undocumented, I note some libraries have already made use of
>> this as std: [ "c++17" ] for example.
> "std" actually means something different: which C++ standard contains
> the library. (E.g. boost::bind is in C++11, boost::optional is in C++17.)

Right !

My suggested field can be renamed, let's say, "mode" instead of
"standard", so as not to be confused with "std" if people like that. In
fact I do not care what names are given to my three categories, but I
think the categories themselves are valid and useful.

Really C++ programmers should not have to delve into a library in some
unknown way just to find if they can use a library, when they compile
their code at some C++ level. Why are we making it hard in Boost for
programmers to find out that sort of basic and useful information,
rather than just document that information in some common place. Since
all Boost libraries have this meta information, documenting it there
would be both common and useful. Credit goes not to me but to whoever
pushed forward the idea of using the meta/libraries.json file for
meta-like information. I am just suggesting a useful reason for using
some meta information that I am sure would benefit programmers using
Boost libraries.

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