On 8 February 2018 at 09:16, Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 02/08/18 17:27, degski via Boost wrote:
On 8 February 2018 at 03:20, Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The same is possible with library components, although it may incur more
overhead. In case of boost/std::function, I would use boost::function or even a custom function wrapper internally (the latter is useful to remove the dependency on Boost.Function). I don't see any advantage of using std::function.
Using std::function has one advantage, though, it's standardised.
In the context of this discussion, it's irrelevant.
It seems only logical to me to decrease coupling with other boost libraries as time moves on, to use the std-equivalent of certain boost libraries... Subtle differences exist (between std- and boost-versions of certain libs), i.e. random, file-system and others... and this is a pita... IMHO, boost libs that state that they are let's say C++14, should use std::array, std::chrono, std::random (and std::function), etc... and decrease coupling with other parts of boost... degski