Re: [lmi] building LMI with newer boost

[Greg Chicares]

On 2008-12-30 23:01Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> 
>  I know and understand (and agree with) the reasons why LMI uses a frozen
> version of Boost but so far I was using a version already installed on my
> system for the MSVC builds. It was 1.34 and it worked just fine. Recently
> however I installed 1.36 and now I have a problem with fs::path::has_leaf
> which has disappeared in it. It was apparently a mistake

That's kind of scary--they lay great stress on unit testing,
and I always thought this was one of their better libraries.
Yet another reason to think twice before using their
serialization library.

> has_leaf() as well as leaf() and other functions using this word were
> nevertheless deprecated in favour of has_filename(), filename() &c. So I
> wonder if you'd agree to commit a workaround which would use the filename
> functions instead of leaf ones if BOOST_VERSION >= 103600.

I'm agreeable. Probably I would prefer to write to whatever
API they're currently proposing for standardization--which
presumably would use the newer names--and add forwarding
functions in one place for backward compatibility.

>  Unfortunately I don't see any nice way to make this work with both the old
> and new Boost versions. The least ugly would probably be to have functions
> file_path_get_filename() or something like this which would use the check
> for BOOST_VERSION above -- at least like this it would need to be done in a
> single place only. OTOH has_leaf() is only used in 2 places right now (And
> leaf() in a couple of more) so maybe inserting 2 #ifs right where it's used
> is not too bad?

I'll look into that. I don't think we're really disagreeing
on the best approach. First, of course, I'll want to consider
why I'm using those functions at all, in case there's really
no good reason.

> I realize that
> it probably isn't particularly useful to LMI right now but sooner or later
> you will start using a more recent Boost version and it might be nice to
> not have this problem then.

Yes. We're going to have to do it eventually, and I've got
time now, so why wait?