Re: [boost] c++03 library survey

On 08/28/18 16:55, degski wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 16:10, Andrey Semashev via Boost mailto:boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

This mostly relates to Boost.Atomic and the answer is absolutely not. Boost.Atomic offers extended functionality compared to std::atomic, it is a potential playground for future extensions that may end up in the standard library.

Then the right way forward, IMO, is to create boost::atomic v2 and bring v1 back to the std. One of the problems people run into is that things are quite similar, but not the same. v2 can then support, and continue to support the non-std features (and be a play-ground for new features).

Why would anyone want two Boost.Atomic libraries? And what is the use of v1, which, presumably, would be equivalent to std::atomic?