Re: The new Boost 17.0.0

From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-01 21:12:32

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020, 23:36 Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 3:27 PM Antony Polukhin wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Why haven't you solved it for Boost.DLL users by switching to
> std::shared_ptr and std::filesystem yet? You don't need anyone's
> permission.
>

Because I'm not planning to drop support for the pre-C++17 users. I wish to
provide another library for users that avoid existing Boost.DLL because of
the dependencies.

Wich brings me to a less radical idea: we may simplify acceptance of
dependenceless library clones. Next step would be to provide predefined
bcp'ed subsets of libraries (boost 17, boost 23?)

>