[epochs] Internal relevance in post-C++03 Boost of Boost03 components vs. standard equivalents

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[epochs] Internal relevance in post-C++03 Boost of Boost03 components vs. standard equivalents

Boost - Dev mailing list
For those of you who are following the discussion on epochs, I've just
prepared a report
on the relevance of "legacy" components intra-Boost for these Boost libs
that require
C++11 (or higher) to work:

https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.MD

Quoting from the report:

"It can be seen that (direct) usage of Boost03 components is residual
(and in some cases
due to backwards compatibility rather than for their functionality). We
can draw then the
conclusion that newer Boost libraries are already dismissing legacy
dependencies when
the standard environment offers alternatives."

Best,

Joaquín M López Muñoz


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [epochs] Internal relevance in post-C++03 Boost of Boost03 components vs. standard equivalents

Boost - Dev mailing list
The link is broken -- the .MD is not capitalized.

https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.md

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 2:02 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> For those of you who are following the discussion on epochs, I've just
> prepared a report
> on the relevance of "legacy" components intra-Boost for these Boost libs
> that require
> C++11 (or higher) to work:
>
>
> https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.MD
>
> Quoting from the report:
>
> "It can be seen that (direct) usage of Boost03 components is residual
> (and in some cases
> due to backwards compatibility rather than for their functionality). We
> can draw then the
> conclusion that newer Boost libraries are already dismissing legacy
> dependencies when
> the standard environment offers alternatives."
>
> Best,
>
> Joaquín M López Muñoz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [epochs] Internal relevance in post-C++03 Boost of Boost03 components vs. standard equivalents

Boost - Dev mailing list
El 04/06/2020 a las 16:53, Jeff Garland via Boost escribió:

> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 2:02 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> For those of you who are following the discussion on epochs, I've just
>> prepared a report on the relevance of "legacy" components intra-Boost for
>> these Boost libs that require C++11 (or higher) to work:
>>
>> https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.MD
> The link is broken -- the .MD is not capitalized.
>
> https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.md

Thanks for the heads-up, I changed capitalization and didn't notice that
broke the link.
Editorial comments aside, your views on the proposal are most welcome.

Joaquín M López Muñoz


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [epochs] Internal relevance in post-C++03 Boost of Boost03 components vs. standard equivalents

Boost - Dev mailing list
I have a half-drafted post that I just haven't been able to finish, but
will try to post this weekend.  It's a topic that has been much discussed
at c++now and other venues where some of us have been fortunate to gather
in the past. Overall I think you're on the right track...more to come :)

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> El 04/06/2020 a las 16:53, Jeff Garland via Boost escribió:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 2:02 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> For those of you who are following the discussion on epochs, I've just
> >> prepared a report on the relevance of "legacy" components intra-Boost
> for
> >> these Boost libs that require C++11 (or higher) to work:
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.MD
> > The link is broken -- the .MD is not capitalized.
> >
> >
> https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.md
>
> Thanks for the heads-up, I changed capitalization and didn't notice that
> broke the link.
> Editorial comments aside, your views on the proposal are most welcome.
>
> Joaquín M López Muñoz
>
>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost