Subject: Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-29 14:37:50
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 05:17:51PM +0000, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Sergey Cheban wrote:
> > On 29.06.2012 18:39, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> > >> The existence of old and unpopular compilers should not
> > >> prevent the Boost from using the modern language features.
> > >> Note that these compilers will never disappear.
> > >
> > > Boost cannot afford to be so purist or there will be few
> > > that use our libraries. We do, and must, drop support for
> > > old compilers.
> > >
> > > We should permit individual libraries to target only very
> > > recent compilers, if the library author so chooses and there
> > > is good reason.
> > I think this is the case with boost.lockfree. It is not easy
> > to implement it without atomics, and there are no atomics for
> > the C++03 (yet).
> I already suggested that Tim add Lockfree to trunk with only C++11 support, so you're arguing against the wind, I guess.
And thus begins the downfall.
One library will start to depend on Lockfree, and soon it's all a right
mess of trying to get anything to work on a perfectly conformant C++03
-- Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk