On 14 May 2015 at 22:06, Edward Diener wrote:
Most of it is very small stuff, but requires human intervention to fix. I certainly found a small truck load of minor breakages in AFIO due to poor understanding of the STL. I learned a lot actually. My code rigour improved enormously.
It is then not a matter of not being able to use an STL11 equivalent but only of the work involved to do so. If there is a reason to use functionality provided by C++11/C++14 a Boost library may still decide to do so. There is nothing technically holding back that library from doing so.
There are good ways and bad ways of supporting C++ 11/14 in an 03 library. Macros which swap boost for std equivalents and doing nothing extra are just about the worst way of doing it (ABI collision, bloat).
I do understand your point of view about new libraries using C++11/C++14 in order to cut down on dependencies of the equivalent functionality in Boost. I do not think your point of view is lost on anyone following this thread and your arguments. But that is a decision which each library developer will make.
Agreed. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/