Replace use of boost type-traits by std type-traits. about python

[stefanseefeld]

I expect that with the above approach you would end up with lots of locations in the code that would use such a conditional logic, which IMO makes the code hard to read.

Thus what I'd propose is something like:

namespace boost { namespace python { namespace detail {
#if __cplusplus < 201103L
  using boost::remove_cv;
  ...
#else
  using std::remove_cv;
  ..
}}} // namespace boost::python::detail

such that in the rest of Boost.Python's code you could then simply refer to boost::python::detail::remove_cv etc., not having to care which original definition this aliases.
(Note, however, that this is just an idea that I would try out. I haven't actually tested this, and thus could be convinced that it isn't workable. I'd put the conditional above into a new header boost/python/detail/type_traits.hpp...)

[shreyans800755]

@stefanseefeld @dabrahams
I would like to work on this issue.

Just to confirm and get along with contributing method, I need to create PR against develop branch, right ?
EDIT: Is there anybody else working on this issue ? If so, I can pick up something else.

[stefanseefeld]

@shreyans800755 , great ! I'm not aware of anyone else working on this right now, so this would be a great contribution. Please be sure to conditionalize these substitutions to only be active whenever a compiler with the appropriate language support is used. We need to maintain backward compatibility.

I suggest a new boost/python/detail/type_traits.hpp header for this.

PRs need to be created against the develop branch.

[shreyans800755]

@stefanseefeld
I'm trying to apply the patch like following:
Adding

#if __cplusplus < 201103L
          typename boost::remove_cv<T>::type
#else
          typename std::remove_cv<T>::type
#endif

and removing
typename boost::remove_cv<T>::type

I don't understand why we need a new file boost/python/detail/type_traits.hpp. Can you please explain ? Am I missing something ?

[shreyans800755]

That's wonderful idea. I knew, changes were a bit cumbersome. This sounds like an elegant solution. I'll try to move ahead with this.