From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-09 13:57:54
> Obviously cxxd does not have to go to great lengths to make this work
for the end-user,
Just picked this quote but it applies to more: The use-case for cxxd is
another than what is intended for a boost-wide solution. As you write
yourself: It is great for one-off code.
In most projects using Boost you don't manually link a boost lib, but
use CMake (or similar). Having more variants means more switches and
complicate the process
>So you want to all Boost libraries which currently support
boost::chrono to also support std::chrono in c++11 mode or higher with
additional interfaces for using std::chrono ? Sure, go ahead if you
think that is viable. That's what everybody currently does now anyway. I
personally do not relish that sort of work, which is why I created cxxd
in the first place.
No. What I and Atharva propose is essentially: `namespace boost::chrono{
using namespace std::chrono; }`. All libraries which use boost::chrono
will now automatically work with std::chrono and users can use
boost::chrono or std::chrono to call into any boost library.
The idea is: (Almost?) all types in std::chrono have exact equivalents
in boost which can simply be used and the boost types can be removed.
Additional functionality provided by Boost (if there is any) should be
changed to rely on std::chrono types (if they even need to, due to the
aliasing above)
What I added was to NOT provide alternatives to C++11 and simply require
them which avoids the need to create variants for the different standards.