Details
-
Type:
RFC
-
Status: Implemented
-
Resolution: Done
-
Component/s: DM
-
Labels:None
-
Location:PR
Description
I would like to switch our code from boost::shared_ptr to std::shared_ptr. If allowed, I would extend this to include all other boost:: classes that now have standard equivalents, such as boost::unordered_map.
boost works, so why bother? I see several advantages:
- It makes our code more standard, so less likely to confuse new developers and outsiders.
- Code that uses a mix of unique_ptr and shared_ptr would be less confusing.
- It would also give us a more accurate picture of what parts of boost we truly rely on, in hopes of eventually ending our use of boost entirely.
Acceptance of this RFC does not imply that it is a high priority. It simply gives us a go-ahead to write a ticket and implement the ticket when we have time. I have not looked deeply at the code to estimate how much effort is required, but I don't expect it to be very much. We have to change the definition of PTR and CONST_PTR and then clean up some additional code.
Attachments
Issue Links
- is triggering
-
DM-4014 Replace boost::tuple with <tuple>
- Done
-
DM-4021 Replace boost::unordered_map with std::unordered_map
- Done
-
DM-4038 Update boost usage documentation
- Done
-
DM-5879 Remove use of Boost smart pointers throughout the Science Pipelines
- Done
-
DM-5880 Audit use of Boost in the stack and remove it where possible
- Done
-
DM-5966 Remove use of Boost smart pointers in meas extensions
- Done
-
DM-4035 Replace boost::array with std::array
- Done
-
DM-4036 Change from boost::math
- Done
-
DM-4008 Switch from boost::shared_ptr to std::shared_ptr
- Invalid
-
RFC-185 Update "Using Boost" section in DM Developer Guide to prefer standard library by default
- Implemented
- relates to
-
DM-2712 Migrate boost::shared_ptr to std::shared_ptr
- Done
-
DM-2720 Migrate boost::scoped_ptr to std
- Done
-
DM-3920 Replace boost::regex with std::regex
- Won't Fix
-
RFC-179 Remove PTR and CONST_PTR macros
- Implemented
- mentioned in
-
Page Loading...
Tim Jenness – I don't intend to schedule any more work which is directly addressing this RFC. However, I didn't file it; I think it's Russell Owen's call as to whether or not it's been implemented to his satisfaction.