Subject: Re: [boost] question about C++11 guidelines
From: Philipp Moeller (philipp.moeller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-03 13:03:38
ivan.lelann_at_[hidden] writes:
> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]>
>> ?: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> Envoy?: Jeudi 3 Mai 2012 00:01:52
>> Objet: [boost] question about C++11 guidelines
>>
>> Say I'm rewriting an existing Boost library and targeting C++11
>> users. I
>> plan to ship C++03 and C++11 versions of my library side-by-side, so
>> back-compat isn't an issue for the new code. Is there a reason to
>> prefer
>> using Boost's versions of utilities like enable_if, type traits,
>> integral constant wrappers (e.g. mpl::int_), tuples, etc., over the
>> now-standard ones?
>>
>> I'm leaning toward using std:: where I can, and falling back on
>> Boost's
>> versions only when there is a compelling reason.
>>
>
> What about this ?
>
> 1) If Foo is a Boost library, it should use boost::shared_ptr.
> 2) boost::shared_ptr may be an alias/using/... to std::shared_ptr. But this is up to Boost.SmartPtr, not to Boost.Foo.
>
My experience with opaque aliasing of std and boost components is rather
bad. There are some subtle differences (e.g. reference_wrapper as a
functor, mem_fn and proxies, tuple operator<<, hash), naming
incompatibilities, and you always need to test both configurations. It
isn't worth the trouble in my experience.