Re: Proposal for adding C++ level to the meta/libraries.json

From: pbristow_at_[hidden]
Date: 2020-09-24 08:59:49

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Gavin Lambert via Boost
> Sent: 24 September 2020 03:57
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Gavin Lambert <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for adding C++ level to the meta/libraries.json
> 
> On 23/09/2020 23:15, Rainer Deyke wrote:
> > I'm actually very interested in when a library is rendered obsolete by
> > a
> > C++ standard.  Lots of Boost libraries have equivalents in the C++
> > standard library, or in some cases in the language itself.  In some
> > cases, the standard library component has completely rendered the
> > Boost version obsolete.  In some cases, the Boost version only exists
> > as a backport of the standard library component, and was never
> > intended to be used in C++ versions that include that component.  In
> > some cases, the Boost version and the standard library component have
> > developed in different directions, and both are viable.  And in some
> > cases, the Boost version exists to correct a perceived flaw in a
> > standard library component, so the Boost version should probably be
> > preferred.  It is often not clear which of these applies to which
> > library, even after reading the library documentation (which may
> > predate the standard library component).
> 
> In theory, I think that's what the existing "std" field was for: "this library is included in this standard
> version".
> 
> Although that's not the whole story, since e.g. Boost.Assign as you mentioned was not directly included
> but (AFAIK) is rendered entirely obsolete by initializer lists, and e.g. Boost.SmartPtr and Boost.Thread
> while *mostly* obsolete do include some extended functionality not in the standard implementation.
> 
> And Boost.Variant[2] make different design choices from the standard implementation, so all three are
> viable alternatives.
> 
> I don't think any meta field is really going to capture these sorts of things too well.

But better than nothing?  

Provided we don't oversell the information.  We need some BIG cautions that this is only a very approximate guide to the full story - which is ultimately "try it and see".

Paul