Le 08/06/2012 18:57, Mateusz Loskot a écrit :
1. the history of all releases, with notes for each release
You mean a changelog per library?
Yes.
2. the motivation of their library
Do you have any examples handy ?
A good example is Boost.Lambda : http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/doc/html/lambda/s03.html#id2374031 Boost.Iostreams could do better... So as Boost.Locale.
3. when they offer services similar to the ones provided by the STL, why did they feel the need to complete it, and what are the differences
Same, examples?
All the TR1 librairies. Boost.Locale, shared_ptr...
3. for the relevant libraries, their status regarding the new features of C++11 (are they obsolete ? do they remain some differences ? ex : Array, Chrono, DateTime), especially the ones related to TR1
AFAIK, there is no such concept as obsolete Boost library if confronted with C++ standard libraries.
Is this an ideological point of view ?
The fact that C++ std has got std::shared_ptr does not make boost::shared_ptr deprecated.
What makes one use boost_shared_ptr instead of std::shared_ptr ? Does he have to read all the doc to find out the differences ? Does he have to do same for EACH library conflicting with C+11 ? Because there are many ones : Array Bind Chrono Enable If Foreach Function Functional/Hash Lambda Lexical Cast ... Static Assert Thread ...
boost::shared_ptr stays here and will be offered as an alternative implementation, same boost::array and similar.
I asked Nicolas Josuttis about Array, and here what he replied to me : "Yes, boost.array is obsolete with C++11. Will see what I can do to describe it (limited time currently)."
Boost is huge and it is impractical to ask developers to follow single convention of formats and tools, fight against personal preferences of developers, etc. So, I have taken that point.
Well, Boost appears to me as a nice label for a library. Maybe the developpers could do an effort.