Greetings to all, So where are we at with this? Have we reached to any conclusion yet? @Mr. Howard Hinnant what do you think would be best? Thanks to all for discussions! Regards, Atharva On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, 06:31 Howard Hinnant via Boost, <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Possible project for someone looking for a boost project to contribute to:
boost::chrono was created soon after std::chrono was proposed and served people well for experimenting with this library prior to migrating to C++11. Fast forward 8 years: Now we have two competing chrono libraries: boost::chrono and std::chrono. And it is not rare for people to use non-chrono boost libraries, which in turn use boost::chrono, and for those same people to use std::chrono. Invariably what happens is they get horribly complicated compile-time errors which boil down to: boost::chrono does not interoperate with std::chrono. And these errors often come from deep within libraries which people are simply trying to use.
The pitch: boost::chrono, and other boost::libs needs to defer to std::chrono for C++11 and later. This would make boost significantly easier to use. This is likely a multi-project effort, and I don’t even have a concrete strategy in mind. This is a problem in search of a solution, not vice-versa. And I often hear of enthusiastic people who want to jump in and lend a helping hand. I think this would be a terrific area to point such talent towards.
Howard
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost