Re: Boost vs Std library features

From: Julien Blanc (julien.blanc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-30 09:28:16

Le 2023-11-30 10:07, Dominique Devienne via Boost a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:03 PM Niall Douglas via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> There were still some big design mistakes in 11
>> 
> 
> Isn't that in part what the proposal(s) to break backward compatibility 
> to
> fix mistakes is/are about?
> The recognition that mistakes will be made, and we can opt-in 
> explicitly to
> the fixes?
> 
> I can't comment on WG21's effectiveness or not. So this is maybe 
> off-topic.
> But wouldn't having editions of the language allow for more flexibility
> regarding BC?

I don't get how it would work regarding ABI/BC. It looks like it would 
allows solving issues within the language itself (like the uniform 
initialization mess), but i fail to see how it would allows fixing 
design issues within the standard library. Or are you suggesting that we 
have std11, std14, std17 namespaces for standard components?

> [2]: https://vittorioromeo.info/index/blog/fixing_cpp_with_epochs.html

He makes a great point by saying that *if the Standard committee doesn’t 
do this, someone else will.*. To me it looks just like what Herb 
Sutter's cppfront is about.

Regards,

Julien