On 10/13/16 16:38, Edward Diener wrote:
On 10/13/2016 5:14 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 10/13/16 01:58, Edward Diener wrote:
I would like to ask a design question for any Boost developers or anyone on this mailing list who might care to answer.
You are designing or working on a library, perhaps for Boost, perhaps for fun, and part of the design of the library has some public functionality taking a shared pointer as input. You:
1) Use boost::shared_ptr 2) Use std::shared_ptr 3) Use both boost::shared_ptr and std::shared_ptr with the same functionality 4) Use neither, you roll your own shared pointer-like functionality 5) You don't lke shared pointers and use raw pointers instead
I really am curious about this. I haven't put any limitation on your library or made any presumption on who your library is for, on purpose. Thanks for anyone answering !
Depends on the target. If I can rely on C++11 features being available in the project then I use std::shared_ptr. Otherwise I use boost::shared_ptr. Both times unconditionally, i.e. no auto-detection stuff.
What would you do if the target is determined the general end-user, who may be compiling your library with whatever options he chooses with whatever compiler he chooses in whatever OS he chooses ?
There is always a list of supported targets. If that list includes a target without C++11 then I'll probably use boost::shared_ptr. That is what I'm doing in Boost.Log, which supports C++03. The choice is specific to a particular component, though. For instance, I tend to use Boost.Atomic even on C++11-enabled targets because I know it's potentially more efficient. I'm also reluctant to use std::condition_variable because I know some implementations have buggy timed functions.