From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-01 20:23:27
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020, 04:19 Raffi Enficiaud via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> On 29.11.20 22:32, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
> > On 11/29/2020 2:14 PM, Raffi Enficiaud via Boost wrote:
> >> On 27.11.20 09:58, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:
> > Boost.Preprocessor works in whatever C++ level you want. It has no
> > reliance on any C++ standard or Boost equivalent library, or any other
> > Boost library. That does not mean you could not eliminate use of its
> > macros in code if you have a better alternative.
> My point is that the biggest blocker for larger adoption of Boost.Test
> is the size of monolithic Boost, not C++17 (which it supports).
> Boost.Test depends on various libs among which preprocessor.
Yes, thank you!
Exactly that's the problem I'm trying to solve with the Boost17. The
problem becomes much bigger, when the Boost library becomes part of the
iterface. For example, Boost.DLL needs shared_ptr and filesystem in it's
interface. Users suffer from boost::filesystem and boost::shared_ptr if
their projects use C++17 std:: alternatives.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk