Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-30 11:43:19

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 08:38:57AM +0100, John Maddock wrote:
>>> > 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.

There's a major difference between C++98 and C++11.
Before '98, there was no standard.
Before '11, there is a perfectly usable standard that bajillions depend

I'm just fearing that there'll be more premature C++11 taint by the day
in Boost, making it less and less usable on C++03 as versions come out.

Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]

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