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 18:12:31

2011/8/21 Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]>

> El 21/08/2011 20:54, Jeff Garland escribió:
>
>  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
>>
>
> IMHO that would be bad news. Until most programmers migrate to a new
> compiler with C++11 features we'll have to wait for years, enterprise
> policies are not compatible with changing the already bought licences and
> environments every yar. Some basic support for C++03 would be nice, we have
> move emulation and some macro tricks for variadic templates. Just my 2
> cents,
>
>
In my case the C++03 support story would be "use date-time v1" -- the #ifdef
in date_time.hpp would handle it as seamlessly as possible with the
exception of any interface changes in the library.  Keep in mind that my
library working group proposal will need to use 0x features to be accepted -
constexpr, strong enums, unicode strings, etc.  So I have some strong
motivation to develop directly in the new language. Since g++ already
supports most of what I'm likely to need it makes it easy for me to move
forward. I'm also not as certain that there will be a long delay in C++11
adoption. For example, a colleague of mine has been using boost libraries
compiled in C++03 mode while using the 0x mode of g++4.6 (on Linux) for his
code.  If the binary compatibility holds up over time and with other
compilers, then a large number of programmers will be able to move forward
to 0x since the entire software stack doesn't need to be recompiled.

Jeff

Jeff