Re: The new Boost 17.0.0

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-01 21:42:00

Antony Polukhin wrote:
> > My alternative idea of "nice to have" is a single Boost library that can 
> > use either boost or std components in its interface. That's not always 
> > possible to obtain though.
>
> I've tried that and it kind of works. There are still problems:
> * users have to use macro to customize the library
> * bcp still pulls in the Boost alternatives
> * code redability suffers from typedefs
> * you still kind of have two different libraries
>
> Here's how it works on Boost.DLL:
> * users define BOOST_DLL_USE_STD_FS
> * bcp still puls in Boost.Filesystem, Boost.System...
> * boost::dll::fs::path = std::conditional_t<a-lot-of-mess>
> * code in incompatible with the library that was build without 
> BOOST_DLL_USE_STD_FS

That's not what I have in mind. Macros don't solve the problem. What I have 
in mind is that there is a single library that, in its interface, can 
seamlessly take either boost::fs::path or std::fs::path, without the user 
having to define anything.

Of course, when building the library, you probably would need to have 
Boost.Filesystem available.