Re: [boost] Cxx dual library

Am 04.06.2016 2:56 nachm. schrieb "Edward Diener" :

On 6/4/2016 8:02 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:

...

Am 04.06.2016 1:17 nachm. schrieb "Bjorn Reese"

:

...

...

On 06/03/2016 08:30 PM, Edward Diener wrote:

...

You are not being very specific about the problems you encountered, so it is really hard to respond to them.

http://www.boost.org/doc/html/move/emulation_limitations.html

Along that line, std::decay might not do what you expect.

I have no doubt there are occasional functional differences between a

Boost library and its C++ standard equivalent even when the syntax is the same. if you are saying that CXXD by its nature hides those differences and therefore is problematic to use I can understand that point of view. I have made a note to discuss this in the documentation.

I think this is very much similar to programmers using, let's say, the

Boost type_traits library in their C++03 application and then deciding to compile using C++11 and switching to the C++ standard type traits library. Obviously they can continue to use Boost type_traits in their C++11 application but if they do decide to switch they have to look at what that entails.

I do understand your argument that is safer to just choose using a Boost

library or its C++ standard equivalent library in C++11 code and be done with it. But I also understand end-users being annoyed when some software library ( whether Boost or elsewhere ) is using the opposite dual library in their interfaces from what they are otherwise already using extensively in their own code.

I completely agree, thanks for summing up what I wanted to say ;)

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes:

http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost