[boost] What to do about std::binary_function and std::unary_function?

std::binary_function and std::unary_function are deprecated, and scheduled to be removed from the standard in C++17. That means it's possible that code using these might soon fail to compile when targeting this standard. These are still used throughout Boost, including by the libraries Accumulators, Algorithm, Bimap, Function, Functional, GIL, Graph, ICL, MPI, Polygon, and Xpressive. You can see all the uses I found in the 1.61 beta boost/ directory at http://kundor.github.io/ubinary_function_list.html . All that these classes do are provide the typedefs result_type, and argument_type (for unary_function) or first_argument_type and second_argument_type (for binary_function). In particular, they do not include a virtual operator(), so that one cannot accept a function object polymorphically as a std::binary_function&, for example. So, although it is conceivable that C++98-era user code might check for inheritance from std::binary_function, it seems rather unlikely: practically all uses should just depend on the typedefs being present (which is what the standard library has always done). With modern C++ standards, the availability of std::result_of, decltype, and std::function make these typedefs redundant, and references to them are being phased out of the standard library (starting with deprecation.) It seems to me that there are four main possibilities for removing these classes from Boost. (I'll talk about binary_function in the following, but it all applies equally to unary_function.) 1) Add some sort of compatibility macro to Boost.Config, to enable classes to inherit from std::binary_function if it is available, or add the appropriate typedefs if it is not. I don't think this is necessary. 2) Remove the inheritance from std::binary_function, and add the typedefs. This seems to be the default approach: it is used by the C++11 standard itself, and has also already been done by some Boost libraries, e.g. in container/string.hpp and in intrusive/priority_compare.hpp. The drawback here is increased verbosity. Instead of writing template <class T> struct functor : std::binary_function {...}; We must write template <class T> struct functor { typedef T first_argument_type; typedef T second_argument_type; typedef bool result_type; ... }; 3) A modification of approach 2: instead of manually adding the typedefs everywhere, make a base class to provide the typedefs somewhere in Boost. Then replace inheritance from std::binary_function with inheritance from boost::binary_function. 4) Just remove inheritance from std::binary_function (and don't provide typedefs.) This is the bold approach. The typedefs are redundant now: I think the only use in the standard library is by the deprecated std::not1/std:not2 and the deprecated binders std::bind1st/std::bind2nd (which are to be removed in C++17). This is the direction that the standard library is starting to head, with all uses of the typedefs deprecated and probably eventually removed, and even the provision of the typedefs optional in C++17 standard library function objects. This has already been done at least by Boost Interprocess in detail/mpl.hpp. Probably the best options are either (2) or (4). Should there be a default policy on what authors should do? Nick Matteo