On 16 May 2014 at 13:03, Nevin Liber wrote:
1. Boost isn't sexy any more.
3. All the interesting new C++ 11 libraries you find around the
internet have zero interest in trying to join Boost, with a very few honorable exceptions. That speaks volumes, to me at least.
Or, if you really believe this,
I would challenge anyone to find a better fitting explanation of the evidence.
maybe you ought to go and start another separate project for developing C++ libraries that is not affiliated with Boost. Seriously.
The big question mark, technically, is just how powerful clang AST analysers can be made. If I can write one which will port code from Boost to the C++ 11 STL and red flag all remaining use, I see no remaining technical obstacles. For example, those parts of Boost such as expected<> and optional<> one would need in a fork, but equally you want the fork to be live to the source. Meanwhile I continue to build out the automated test infrastructure for AFIO and its extending libraries. As there are many of these, I have made them generic, and there is no reason other libraries could not also work. My next step is a proper Travis CI API based test controller rather than the hack shell script I have right now. All this is six months away, and only if I'm happy testing my own code and the review of the C++11 libraries in the review queue goes badly (by which I include they don't get timely reviews), then we'll see where we are at.
3. Eliminate peer review in favour of a suite of automated libclang based AST analysers. Instead of persuading people to review libraries, persuade them to review and improve the AST analysers.
What AST analyser do I use to determine if I have a good interface for my library?
That is an excellent technical question. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/