Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-30 03:38:57

>> > 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
> compiler.

Apologies for not following this discussion in full - but Boost has *always*
pushed the compiler envelope. Right from the start libraries required C++98
features that at the time were implemented in very few compilers. It's not
new for a library to be at the bleeding edge waiting for it's time to come.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at