Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-14 13:53:08
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 04:21:38PM +0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
> > 2013/6/14 Sid Sacek <ssacek_at_[hidden]>:
> > <...>
> > > Sounds like it's not really worth the effort and simply just stick to
> the old style.
> > Stick to the old style. Add #ifndef'ed C++11 specific features if they add
> > functionality or improve performance much. Boost libraries are tested
> > C++11 and C++03 on different compilers and works good in all situations.
> Speaking of which, I was going to ask this list about the minimum compiler
> requirements for proposed GSoC Boost.AFIO, so now is as good a time as any.
> The existing code base being prepared for entry into Boost is pure C++11, or
> at least as much C++11 as is provided by the Nov 2012 CTP experimental MSVC
> compiler and therefore easily supported by GCC 4.6 and clang 3.x.
I hope that you do realize that the Nov12 CTP does not come with a
go-live license, nor is recommended for any human consumption.
It seems quite odd to me to spend significant GSoC resources on making a
library that targets only two compilers, and assumedly a rather narrow
set of OSes.
Was this C++11-only requirement part of the original project plan, and
why didn't anyone object to it 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