On 31 Oct 2013 at 10:40, Marshall Clow wrote:
will get upset. I would also personally count lack of adding direct C++11 support as equal to lack of bug fixing, but I appreciate that will be controversial (what is C++11 support anyway???) :)
A good question. For example, what does it mean to add C++11 support to Boost.Array?
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L #warning "You should really think about using std::array instead of boost::array." #endif
:-) :-)
Or better still, simply silently map in std::array as boost::array and definitely don't mention it in any documentation :) After all, library code ought to be surprising, keep these programmers on their feet! More seriously though, I do wish more rvalue ref support was present in the older Boost libraries. I have, occasionally, bumped into situations where passing in a move-only type causes barf and I have to use a shared_ptr wrapper to work around it. That's a problem with any old C++ codebase of course, but it would be nice if Boost had a formal process in place to strongly incentivise minimum necessary C++11 upgrades of older Boost libraries. That said, I appreciate adding move only type support often involves a complete rearchitect of internals. That may of course not be a bad thing. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/