On 14 May 2015 at 16:23, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
No, I'm saying it's up to the maintainer to maintain their library. I believe that means making it able to use as much STL11 as possible if they want to keep it fresh and relevant. Or else they completely rewrite it in C++ 11/14. I don't mind which.
Are you saying that if a Boost library uses boost::function, it's up to that library's author to make it able to use std::function instead?
Yes. Maybe with a macro set by the user such as BOOST_XXX_USE_BOOST_FUNCTION=1.
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). APIBind enables you to bind a copy of function<> into your library's namespace e.g. namespace boost { namespace foo { template<class R, class... Args> using function = std::function<R(Args...)>; } } 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. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/