Re: The new Boost 17.0.0

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-11-29 18:04:39

Jeff Garland wrote:

> And to be clear -- I was just illustrating an example that I don't 
> consider to be a 'nice to have' for a newer version of c++.  There are 
> certainly others....

There are certainly others, and in every case I think that the right thing 
to do is along the same lines. This is sometimes relatively trivial, as with 
string_view, sometimes hard, as with taking error_code& or returning an 
optional.

Note how we don't have this issue at all with boost::function - that's 
because it already takes everything, including std::function, so interop 
mostly just works. A library that takes a boost::function in its interface 
is usable as-is from C++17 client code.