On 22 Jan 2015 at 15:20, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
Hello, is it permitted to transform an existing boost library into a C++11-only library?
If you meant here "transform an existing boost library into a C++11-only *Boost* library with C++ 11 only APIs" then I think you need to cycle the library name. Precedent here is that Signals went to Signals2, here I should think Coroutine ought to become Coroutine2. If you meant here "transform an existing boost library into a C++11 STL _capable_ *standalone* library" i.e. you do as Chris did in ASIO and I've done in AFIO via BindLib and provide a macro based framework for swapping out Boost STL for C++ 11 STL, then no I don't think the name needs to change as ASIO already did this some time ago, and I doubt anyone in Boost even noticed. The precedent here says this is okay so long as 03 Boost STL support still works. If finally you really meant here "I'd like a totally different internal implementation of Coroutine when C++ 11 mode is switched on, but still provide a legacy if orphaned but mostly API compatible C++ 03 implementation" then I'd personally say no name change needed. Precedent here is probably Boost.Thread where an increasing chunk of it uses different implementations depending on the C++ standard being used. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/