Subject: Re: [boost] Cxx dual library
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-04 08:55:00
On 6/4/2016 8:02 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> Am 04.06.2016 1:17 nachm. schrieb "Bjorn Reese" <breese_at_[hidden]>:
>>
>> On 06/03/2016 08:30 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
>>
>>> You are not being very specific about the problems you encountered, so
>>> it is really hard to respond to them.
>>
>>
>> http://www.boost.org/doc/html/move/emulation_limitations.html
>>
>
> Along that line, std::decay might not do what you expect.
I have no doubt there are occasional functional differences between a
Boost library and its C++ standard equivalent even when the syntax is
the same. if you are saying that CXXD by its nature hides those
differences and therefore is problematic to use I can understand that
point of view. I have made a note to discuss this in the documentation.
I think this is very much similar to programmers using, let's say, the
Boost type_traits library in their C++03 application and then deciding
to compile using C++11 and switching to the C++ standard type traits
library. Obviously they can continue to use Boost type_traits in their
C++11 application but if they do decide to switch they have to look at
what that entails.
I do understand your argument that is safer to just choose using a Boost
library or its C++ standard equivalent library in C++11 code and be done
with it. But I also understand end-users being annoyed when some
software library ( whether Boost or elsewhere ) is using the opposite
dual library in their interfaces from what they are otherwise already
using extensively in their own code.