From: Geoffrey H. <geo...@gm...> - 2015-04-27 18:04:07
|
Several people have said some good related comments, but I feel I should make some of my own. > Some of the changes you propose, like removing `using namespace > std` are cosmetic but it may be that you could get them into the > main repo without much trouble. Indeed. As you might guess, these are holdovers from the slow migration from non-standard C++ in ~2000-2001 to std-compliant C++. I'm all in favor of patches that remove this. > You have some more changes like changing `return(false)` into `return false` that do not hurt. > Same with const-ness as long as it does not break anything. Agreed. > For moving to C++14 or boost, this is different. As a project, we have tried to balance between using newer concepts for useful reasons (shared pointer) and dumping old compilers. There's a huge world of difference between updating a codebase used by a few people or writing your own project and making changes to an open source project used by hundreds, if not thousands. For a long time, we continued to get complaints about running OB on a buggy compiler on CentOS. The subject of Boost comes up, and I'd be willing to revisit this discussion now. As David Koes mentioned, it would certainly greatly simplify the filtering stream paradigm we currently use. That's a huge win. Boost.Python.. Well, let's say I've had a number of not-so-good experiences with it. I greatly prefer SWIG because it requires much less maintenance. If someone needs a new header, it's a 5-minute fix. With Boost, we have to add new methods and new classes all the time. Plus, the other language bindings are clearly finding use. So welcome and let's have some productive conversations. Please feel free to submit pull requests for "using std" and other minimal changes. :-) Cheers, -Geoff |