On 5/14/2015 8:33 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 14 May 2015 at 19:27, Edward Diener wrote:
If C++11/C++14 does not offer anything to a library developer of an existing library than what they already have with C++03 and Boost, what is the impetus to add C++11/C++14 support to a library ?
I gave four reasons earlier in the thread.
I will just have to disagree with you and say that none of the reasons which you give is going to make me add C++11/C++14 code to a software library, Boost or otherwise, or an application.
I'll try again, even not knowing what you mean by "STL11 equivalents". Why would libraries in Boost which depend on STL11 equivalents not be able to use the STL11 equivalent ?
Slight API differences. Legacy API usage. Most STL11 implementations are much less forgiving than Boost with usage.
Most of it is very small stuff, but requires human intervention to fix. I certainly found a small truck load of minor breakages in AFIO due to poor understanding of the STL. I learned a lot actually. My code rigour improved enormously.
It is then not a matter of not being able to use an STL11 equivalent but only of the work involved to do so. If there is a reason to use functionality provided by C++11/C++14 a Boost library may still decide to do so. There is nothing technically holding back that library from doing so. I do understand your point of view about new libraries using C++11/C++14 in order to cut down on dependencies of the equivalent functionality in Boost. I do not think your point of view is lost on anyone following this thread and your arguments. But that is a decision which each library developer will make.