On 19 Aug 2025 00:06, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 1:16 AM Peter Dimov via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Chris already uses C++11 in Asio but has deliberately retained system::error_code.
Dropping it will lose the error locations.
If the proposed Asio2 uses std::error_code instead of boost::system::error_code, there will certainly be a loss of the location functionality. Is it worth it? How many users avoid boost::asio because they perceive the use of boost::system::error_code as a negative? How many users have adopted boost::system::error_code into their code bases just for the location? I don't think many (or realistically, any). I believe that the location functionality is a consolation prize for people who are already using Boost. I don't think the feature is so powerful or so desired that it is driving new users into adopting Boost. What I do hear over and over again is that people want to use standard types, not Boost's alternative types that do the same thing, even if there is some hypothetical value-add. We can debate whether this attitude is rationale, yet I doubt it will be productive to do so as we are not going to be changing anyone's minds.
People who don't want to use Boost are unlikely to use your fork, which, presumably, is supposed to be a part of Boost. Those people are probably using standalone Asio or something else entirely instead of Boost.Asio today anyway, and will continue to do so. You seem to target an audience that wants to use Boost but specifically not Boost.System. It seems like a rather narrow audience.