Subject: Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-03 07:23:05
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:05:10AM +0000, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Steve Ramsey wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Lars Viklund wrote:
> > > 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.
> Standard compliant code is hardly a taint.
> > My thinking on this is that just because you're forced to
> > live in a cave and code on bongos is no reason why I can't
> > have nice things.
> Hyperbole aside, I agree with your sentiment.
> > Besides, it's a bit difficult to "establish 'existing
> > practice' and provide reference implementations so that Boost
> > libraries are suitable for eventual standardization" when you
> > aren't even targeting the current standard.
> Right. Boost is much less about long term support than it is about
> advancing the state of the art in C++ library design and
> standardization. Accommodating users of older compilers has always
> been up to the individual library author. Conditional compilation is
> a pain they must choose to incur and endure. If you want a library to
> add support for your platform, it's up to you to encourage the library
> maintainer to add support or to contribute patches in the hopes the
> maintainer will adopt them. There is no other option.
Fair enough, it seems like I've misunderstood some aspects of our
mission. I've always thought it was to smooth out the fragmented
Seems like I was wrong all along then.
-- 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