C++11 equivalent to std::quoted introduced in C++14

Question

As used in this answer, I'm looking for a C++11 compatible code for the same but the usage of std::quoted prevents me from achieving that. Can anyone suggest an alternative solution?

Answer 1

I give my answer assuming that you expect to find a generic approach to handle such situations. The main question that defines the guideline for me is: "How long am I supposed to maintain this code for an older compiler version?"

1. If I'm certain that it will be migrated to the newer toolset along with the rest of the code base (even though in a few years time, but it will inevitably happen), then I just copy-paste implementation from the standard headers of the next target version of my compiler and put it into namespace std in a separate header within my code base. Even though it's a very rude hack, it ensures that I have exactly the same code version as the one I'll get after migration. As I start using newer (in this case C++14-compatible) compiler, I will just remove my own "quoted.h", and that's it.

Important Caveat: Barry suggested to copy-paste gcc's implementation, and I agree as long as the gcc is your main target compiler. If that's not the case, then I'd take the one from your compiler. I'm making this statement explicitly because I had troubles when I tried to copy gcc's std::nested_exception into my code base and, having switched from Visual Studio 2013 to 2017, noticed several differences. Also, in the case of gcc, pay attention to its license.

2. If I'm in a situation where I'll have to maintain compatibility with this older compiler for quite a while (for instance, if my product targets multiple compiler version), then it's more preferable first of all to look if there's a similar functionality available in Boost. And there is, in most cases. So check out at Boost website. Even though it states

"Quoted" I/O Manipulators for Strings are not yet accepted into Boost as public components. Thus the header file is currently located in

you are able to use it from "boost/detail". And, I strongly believe that it's still better than writing your own version (despite the advice from Synxis), even though the latter can be quite simple.

3. If you're obliged to maintain the old toolset and you cannot use Boost, well...then it's maybe indeed worth thinking of putting your own implementation in.