Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-30 17:19:26

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 02:51:30PM -0500, Nevin Liber wrote:
> On 30 June 2012 10:43, Lars Viklund <zao_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > 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
> > on.
> >
> And there is a perfectly useable Boost they can use with it.
> > 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.
> >
> Why is it premature? It doesn't make Boost less useable on C++03; it just
> means that less and less *new* libraries will be for that dead end dialect
> of C++.--
> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404

Please let me in through the dimensional portal where there's widely
spread compilers that properly targets C++11. It's cold on this side.

Seriously though, are you proposing that anyone that has to use C++03
should be locked for all eternity at some ancient Boost version, even
though there's functionality in newer ones they very much would like to

Should we doom a large majority of developers to keep personal patch
sets against their Boosts, resulting in a largely fragmented and
impossible-to-handle ecosystem?

Things might get slightly less horrible with modularized Boost, where
everyone can run their own vaguely compatible "releases" of Boost, but
it's still a major support nightmare.

I see this primarily from an end-user support and end-user perspective,
not as any library author or release mangler.

Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]

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