Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:

On 14 May 2015 at 16:23, Emil Dotchevski wrote:

...

I think that if the option is available at all it should be up to boost::function to map to std::function, but other Boost libraries would still #include "boost/function.hpp" and refer to it as boost::function.

The problem with that is almost certainly some libraries will need refactoring to support std::function. It's not always a clean swap, especially if boost::function extensions are used (even if not necessary).

I bet that there aren't that many examples of this. I also wonder to what degree does anyone care that they have a mixture of e.g. std::function and boost::function in their code base. I'm probably biased because our corporate code base uses Boost and not std -- simply because using Boost makes our code more portable. I keep thinking that maybe at some point I'll switch everything to std but the way it's going, I don't see this happening within the next 3-5 years.

APIBind enables you to bind a copy of function<> into your library's namespace e.g.

namespace boost { namespace foo { template using function = std::function; } }

You obviously wouldn't define that except when building under C++ 11 with std function enabled. function<> then resolves to either std function or boost function as configured. Your library code is unchanged, and doesn't care what the implementation is.

Would this work in case a header only declares shared_ptr, as in: namespace boost { template <class> class shared_ptr; } instead of #include ? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode