[boost] Re: Guidelines to support Boost components and their std alternatives

Samuel Debionne wrote:

Some libraries have APIs that rely on type from Boost libraries that have std alternative in C++17 (think filesystem, variant, optional). I wonder if there are some guidelines available for library maintainers to support both alternatives (or concerns if it is not a good idea)?

I don't know about any official policy on the matter, but I and others have previously gotten burned by having it be a compile-time check at the point of inclusion. I feel strongly that the proper solution is to rely on Boost Config, so that everything compiling against a build of Boost will compile in the same way and thereby avoid any ODR violations. Matt