Boost logo

Boost :

From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-11-27 10:46:53

пт, 27 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:36, Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> We went over this multiple times. I'll just reiterate that I disagree
> with this approach. Many Boost libraries are superior to std
> equivalents, and I want to keep using them inside and outside Boost.
> Also, I don't see why Boost libraries are not allowed to exist as an
> extension over the std equivalents.

That's why we are not dropping the existing Boost. There are many
users who share your point of view. But there are others, and we have
more and more of them year over year.

> > That approach would allow to loose a lot of weight, do not mess with
> > vocabulary types and significantly reduce dependencies
> >
> >
> > By levels:
> > config 0 -> we probably would not need it any more
> That's wishful thinking, unfortunately. Compiler bugs still exist, and
> C++17 support level is not uniform across compilers. Moving forward,
> later C++ versions are also not uniformly implemented.

We have feature test macro and Predef. IMO that's enough.

> > assert 1 -> 0
> I'm not aware of a standard replacement of Boost.Assert. <cassert> is
> not one.

Assert drops dependency on Config and moves to Level 0. I'm not
proposing to purge the library.

Best regards,
Antony Polukhin

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