Re: [boost] The Lonely Song of the MPL Maintainer -- or Boost support for antediluvian compiler and the future supprot of C++11

Subject: Re: [boost] The Lonely Song of the MPL Maintainer -- or Boost support for antediluvian compiler and the future supprot of C++11
From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-21 14:54:58

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Joel falcou <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> <radical>
> Going further, shouldn't we start thinking at boost 2.0 which will
> definitevely let c++03 die its peaceful death and start, on a voluntary
> effort, move boost component toward C++11. I know we have a fully working
> Fusion for 0x only. mpl, proto and other strategic infrastructure libraries
> should benefit from that. Some are a trivial port like Boost.PP and all the
> TR1 boost library that will just either disappear or forward the C++11
> version.
> </radical>
>
>
For what it's worth, I'm currently looking at creating date-time v2 in
preparation for an updated lwg proposal.  It expect it  will be "mostly"
compatible with date-time v1, but with some new twists and adjustments --
enough that I want to rewrite the core code. To save time and energy I'm
seriously considering requiring C++11 so that I have access to several new
features. In my case I have to also contend with Chrono compatibility -- so
supporting C++03 requires switching out to boost::chrono etc.  As a
structure I'm considering simply creating boost/date_time_v2 and
libs/date_time_v2 (or date_time_cpp11 if you prefer) and thus the only
#ifdef w.r.t C++11 shows up in date_time.hpp  With this approach bcp could
pull out the correct date-time for C++11 if that's all you wanted.

Obviously other libraries could adopt this approach making it easy to get a
c++11 version of boost. The big downside to this sort of direction is that
it would require 'forking the library'.  On the other hand, much of the
'core of boost' (shared_ptr, etc) isn't needed since it's in std::

Jeff