Re: The new Boost 17.0.0

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-02 10:25:59

On 12/2/20 1:17 AM, Kostas Savvidis via Boost wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 2, 2020, at 00:01, Edward Diener via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>   OTOH if he is compiling with C++11 on up he is probably using std::random instead of boost::random so your choice is right.
> 
> I am providing my new, better RNG in boost::random since convincing LWG to include it in std::random will take some while longer ;)
> 
> (btw, std:array is not a part of any interfaces of boost::random it is a purely an internal issue which, yes, I know, is not considered as serious)

Perhaps not in the particular case of array, but having user-selectable 
std or boost components as class members is even more serious than in 
interface (e.g. function arguments). Class member types do not get 
reflected in the symbol names, which makes ABI discrepancies go 
unnoticed by the linker and cause weird bugs in runtime. This is why 
compile time selection between types of internal components is generally 
discouraged.