Boost.GIL 3 ideas from the past about gil HOT 15 CLOSED

I've taken the liberty to make the title and clearer, searchable and here too https://github.com/boostorg/gil/projects/2

Current master and develop are at Boost.GIL 2, correct?

from gil.

Yes, I think so.

from gil.

Right, thanks for clarification.

It seems a bit confusing to not to refer to Boost versions, unless there is <boost/gil/version.hpp, like in boost/beast/version.hpp or boost/spirit/version.hpp and others.

from gil.

I have added version.hpp and raised the develop version to 2.2. Indicating the new extensions, like io and toolbox.

from gil.

Sounds good!

from gil.

make use of c++11 features

Although I would welcome complete switch to C++11 that opens possibility to refactor/simpliy the library implementation, I think this is too early to set requirement of C++11:

• Does Boost allow to bump minimum requirement for an existing library? I'm not sure.
• When that should happen, before or after the new IO is released? I'd vote for after.

/cc @stefanseefeld

from gil.

I'm not sure there are any fixed rules as to whether we are allowed to make C++11 a requirement. Let's discuss this based on specific goals: can you give a specific example where using a C++11 feature would help ?
I'm reluctant of adding dependencies on other boost libraries (in particular if they are not part of the core set of libraries, such as boost::fusion).

from gil.

yeah, definitely after The Grand Merge, which will happen after the current release is complete. I'm confident I'll have the documentation refactoring complete by then...

Any news on the checksum issue with variant=release ?

from gil.

@stefanseefeld

I'm reluctant of adding dependencies on other boost libraries (in particular if they are not
part of the core set of libraries

I agree, unless optional.

Any news on the checksum issue with variant=release ?

Although cause of the problem is still a puzzle, I've made small progress and pin-pointed area of Boost.GIL where the issues happens. I will e-mail soon this week.

@stefanseefeld

Let's discuss this based on specific goals: can you give a specific example where using a C++11 feature would help ?

Get rid of boost::lambda, boost::bind (good idea in 2005, bad idea in 2015) for saner compiler errors, at least, I hope.

from gil.

Moving this to a wiki.

from gil.

https://github.com/boostorg/gil/wiki/gil-3-Ideas

from gil.

Closing?

from gil.

Issue is not the format I think. A wiki seems better.

from gil.

Yes, so my question was if this shouldn't be closed, or you want to keep it open?

from gil.

I think I broken the link by renaming the wiki page, here it is

https://github.com/boostorg/gil/wiki/Boost.GIL-3-Ideas

from gil.