On Tue, Dec 1, 2020, 23:36 Glen Fernandes
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 3:27 PM Antony Polukhin wrote:
Exactly that's the problem I'm trying to solve with the Boost17. The problem becomes much bigger, when the Boost library becomes part of the iterface. For example, Boost.DLL needs shared_ptr and filesystem in it's interface. Users suffer from boost::filesystem and boost::shared_ptr if their projects use C++17 std:: alternatives.
Why haven't you solved it for Boost.DLL users by switching to std::shared_ptr and std::filesystem yet? You don't need anyone's permission.
Because I'm not planning to drop support for the pre-C++17 users. I wish to provide another library for users that avoid existing Boost.DLL because of the dependencies. Wich brings me to a less radical idea: we may simplify acceptance of dependenceless library clones. Next step would be to provide predefined bcp'ed subsets of libraries (boost 17, boost 23?)