Re: Technical Excellence?

From: Nigel Stewart (nigels.com_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-03-31 02:33:38

>
> > For example, for smart pointers (I don't say that we need to remove it,
> > it's only an example) we can write in the site and in the documentation
> >
> > - this library is deprecated since version 1.87.0
> > - this library will be removed in version 1.91.0
>
> I strongly feel that certain old libraries should be deprecated.  I also
> strongly feel that these libraries should never be removed - or at
> least, not without a Boost 2.0 release in a boost2 namespace that can
> exist side by side with Boost 1.x.
>

I recently got our all of the C++ building in C++20 mode.

I had the thought that it would be nice to have a C++20 "spin" of Boost
that only included things relevant for "modern" C++.  So things like
smart pointers would _not_ be there because we encourage use of
standard language and library features where possible.

However, I also have a counter-argument to the same idea.

We prefer boost random because it produces the same stream
of numbers across platforms.  It's an exception to our general
rule of using std where possible.

Perhaps a concept of "core" Boost and "extras" then?
Things in extras would include some description of why it might
not be recommended for new code.  And there there is a
#define to limit things to core.

- Nigel Stewart