Subject: Re: [boost] Any Chances for Boost Stable?
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-21 11:50:07
> Is there any chance for Stable Boost version?
Boost is a collection of libraries with different characteristics. The
best that we can hope is that each individual library declares that it
is, for example:
- Stable, because it's a completed implementation of e.g. a tr1 or
c++0x feature that's not going to change.
- Stable, in the sense that new features will be added and old stuff at
worst deprecated (e.g. Spirit and its "classic" branch).
- Unstable, because it's a new library that's still evolving.
- Bah humbug this library maintainer doesn't want to tell you if it's
stable or not so you can assume the worst :-)
It would help for the docs to spell this out explicitly, but I think
most of us can probably guess the answers for the libraries that we use.
I have some experience of distributing source code that depends on
Boost, and there is an issue here. It's not reasonable to depend on a
single version of Boost since distributions only package -dev packages
for one version, which could be too new or too old. As a result I tend
to avoid dependencies on libraries that I suspect are unstable in this
sort of code.
There is much less of a problem if you either rely on distributions to
establish compatibility or if you distribute binaries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk