On 10/13/2016 10:56 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 10/13/16 17:33, Edward Diener wrote:
On 10/13/2016 10:00 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
There is always a list of supported targets. If that list includes a target without C++11 then I'll probably use boost::shared_ptr. That is what I'm doing in Boost.Log, which supports C++03.
I understand that and I think that is the general consensus. But what might happen, not that it seems to bother anyone much but me <g>, is that your library, which supports C++03, is nevertheless "compiled" by some programmer(s) using C++11 in their own project. Then their normal use of std::shared_ptr ( because it's there and naturally supported by their compiler implementation in C++11 mode ) doesn't really "play well" with your own use of boost::shared_ptr. Of course you may well say "what's the big deal, when you interface with my library you will use boost::shared_ptr and have a dependency on it, while otherwise you have chosen to use std::shared_ptr and have a dependency on your compiler's implementation. I see no problem with that." And technically you would be right, but practically the user of your library might feel differently about it.
Well, that's a nuisance for the user, no doubt. But that's the consequence of the chosen balance between my burden as the library maintainer and user's convenience. Having configurable library interface can be a headache of itself, it doesn't look like a clear cut solution.
It is certainly easier just to make a choice and stay with it. I don't think that cxx_dual is a "headache" but of course I am biased, being the author. But it is good to know where you stand on this. Thanks !