Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re: Thoughts on Boost v2)

Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re: Thoughts on Boost v2)
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 08:45:22

Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Those who want Boost to provide a bridge between C++03 and C++11 because 
> they can't use C+11 should stick to "Legacy Boost" (whether that's v1.x or 
> some fork that goes into maintenance mode) and not hold back interesting 
> new development.

I don't understand. Who are those hypothetical people holding back 
interesting new development?