24 Feb
2014
24 Feb
'14
2:55 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Robert Kawulak
Just an idea: it seems like this approach is not too flexible given that there are numerous standards/TRs/TSs coming now and in the future that possibly include Boost libraries. Instead of adding a new field for each one of them, maybe it would be better to have one "std" field with a list specifying in which standard/TR/TS a library is included/proposed for?
Something flexible, like a list, would be good. In Boost.Smart_Ptr, we have class templates like shared_ptr and function templates like make_shared that are part of C++11, but the Boost implementations are now improved and proposed for the next standard (N3920 in TS1, and N3939 in TS2). Glen