Le 04/05/12 22:33, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
On Friday 04 May 2012 20:03:51 Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Le 04/05/12 08:32, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
IMO, every Boost library that has a counterpart in the standard should comply with the standard as much as possible and should use the standard whenever it is possible (that is the class/function is available and the library don't introduce extensions on them). Any deviation from the standard could be seen as a defect and should either be fixed or described explicitly as a limitation on the documentation. Although, this is not exactly on-topic, I don't agree with you here. It is
On Friday 04 May 2012 07:44:56 Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote: the library author's choice whether to make the library strictly a drop-in replacement for a standard component or an independent library with it's own features that in some aspects reflect the standard by historical reasons. Neither approach is a limitation or a flaw. Is there something wrong in stating explicitly the differences? No, it's just those differences should not be viewed as limitations.
Agreed when it is intentional, but not when it is a missing or partially implemented feature. For example, the standard has template <class F, class ...Args> explicit thread(F&& f, Args&&... args); Boost.Thread has not yet implemented this function completely. I see this as a limitation. The limitation could be resolved or not in a portable way, but at least on C++11 compilers the feature should be implemented in a near future. We plan to do it, but as you know we can not do everything at once ;-). Hopping this clarifies my point. Sorry for been out of topic, Vicente