From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-15 15:17:21
>>> Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Then., the name '1.33' somehow suggests
>>> two levels of versions, while really there is only one (by the way:
>>> why do you carry the '1.' around ? Do you expect a 'release 2' at
>>> some point ? If so, in what way would such a release be different
>>> from an upgrade from 1.32 to 1.33, say ?)
> David Abrahams wrote:
> Heh, very good quesion!
Just one random observer's opinion!
I have been wondering the same thing since around Boost 1.25 - what
would prompt an update in the major version number?
One possibility would be the accepance of library TR1 - which adopts
many boost libraries into a standard namespace, one of Boost's founding
However, I figured what would really make a claim for v2 would be a
more fundamental change in the language itself.
I am trying to imagine Boost in a post-C++0x world (x to be termined,
We will have several new language features to take advantage of - this
could have far reaching implications to many libraries.
Hopefully new language features will take out whole layers of
metaprogramming trickery and cleverness, allowing much more direct and
clear implementations, maybe making some libraries redundant.
Almost certainly several boost libraries will have been adopted into
the standard library itself, making a duplicate copy in boost maybe
little more than a fall-back for compiling pre-standard code.
Meanwhile, not all compiler vendors will have made the jump to the new
standard, so we are left in the cleft stick of supporting C++03, or
going with the new standard.
That seems like a good time to cut ties with old compilers (such as VC6
and Gcc 2.95) and focus on libraries appropriate for the new language.
If (and it is a very big 'if') the community of Boost authors wanted to
adopt the new standard without falling over backwards with (broken!)
C++03 support, that would be a very good time to kick off a Boost v2
project - possibly retaining Boost 1 in a 'bug fix' / compatibility
mode, much as Spirit 1.6 continues to be supported for old compilers
while 1.8 is the actively developed branch in Boost.
Of course I am not a contributing author, and so my opinion should be
weighed accordingly ;?)
But it seemed like a good time to bring up the question of Boost post
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk