[geos-devel] [UTF] envelope_class_test.cpp fixed for Boost 1.33

[strk at refractions.net]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:08:56PM +0100, Mateusz Å?oskot wrote:
> Mateusz Łoskot wrote:
> >Paul Ramsey wrote:
> >
> >>The situation in general makes me wary, if Boost is going to changing
> >> incompatibly with some regularity.
> >
> >
> >Yes, I also have similar thoughts.
> >Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that some Boost library can break 
> >compatibility between releases 1.33 and 1.34.
> >I have to discuss it with Gennadyi Rozental - the author of Boost.Test
> 
> 
> So, as Gennadiy has explained me, Boost is backward compatible, but not 
> forward. It's safe to use older API from Boost 1.33.

As you know debian stable ships with 1.32.
As far as boost is known to be backward compatible I think we
should stick with oldest release. Ideally before 1.32, but
if that's the oldest we have access to I think it's a good candidate.

> Complete story I'd suggest to take a look at is here,
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/17409
> 
> 
> Now, I don't want to make much commotion about tests, and if we've just 
> decided to go on with TUT that's OK for me.

That's ok with me too. Anyway, since automake tests
are already there, and we might be using other boost
feature in future refactoring, I'd go with boost.
Of course I'm assuming backward compatibility for all 1.XXX versions.

> But my next question is more about GEOS future. Should be Boost 
> considered or not?
> As we discussed it much with Sandro and Norman on the #postgis channel,
> in future it would be nice to move to modern C++, so then I suppose it's 
> not possible to drop Boost (I mean without huge amount of work :-)).
> So, I'm trying to convince myself about that Boost is still good piece 
> of software and worth to use.
> 
> If I'd like to redesign "something" in GEOS, rewrite in more 
> safe/short/elegant way then how should I do it to provide useful code?
> Is this OK if I'll use Boost e.g. it's Smart Pointers or other stuff.

I'd say not before release 3.0.0.
Worth adding comments in the code with *suggestions* on where to use it.
Anyway, there are many places where, not "modern", but "simple" C++ should
be enforced :)

--strk;