[boost] Re: Boost 2 - development in long term

From: Russell Hind (rhind_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-11 12:09:45

Robert Geiman wrote:
>>
> The problem I have is, if leaving the decision of what compilers to 
> support up to the library author results in one Boost library that works 
> with compiler A and B, but not C, while others work with compiler A and 
> C, but not B.  It can be very confusing to someone who's looking at 
> using Boost and they want to know if Boost supports their compiler.  
> There REALLY should be a standard for this.  Or is there and I'm missing 
> something?
> 

Spirit has already made bcc32 obsolete in boost-1.31 so I've stuck with 
1.30.2.  I know I can get spirit elsewhere and not use the boost 
version, but I like the fact that I have a single external library to 
keep track of the version.  I am happy with boost-1.30.2 but as one 
library has already dropped support for my compiler, I'll probably stick 
with 1.30.2 until Borland's new compiler comes out or I move to a 
different compiler (which definitely won't happen in the near future).

As I've said before, I'm happy for support for this compiler to stop 
because once one library that did work doesn't new versions of boost can 
suddenly become useless if your current work depends on that library.

The replies to this were leave it up to the individual library 
maintainers. This is fine, but some of them may be going through much 
effort to support an old compiler the other maintainers have decided to 
drop, consequently users of that compiler may not move to newer versions 
of boost because parts they rely on nolonger function.

Cheers

Russell