Steven Watanabe-4 wrote:
AMDG
A * Leave the implementation alone and put a big warning in the documentation saying that the behavior doesn't match the standard. B * Since I'm also moving things into namespace boost::random, I can use the new definition and leave a version with the old behavior in namespace boost instead of having a using declaration. I'd still have to add a warning that boost::geometric_distribution isn't the same as boost::random::geometric_distribution.
Neither one is particularly appealing. Any thoughts? Better ideas?
Don't breaking code is the best we can do. Option B allows to don't break user code, and if the non standard behavior is marked as deprecated (and is a compile warning can be generated) the user can move smoothly to the standard behavior. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/random-geometric-distribution-backwards-c... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.