Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-17 11:57:14
On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 17 June 2013 16:29, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> I know, C++11 has many fancy features and all, and I'm all for its adoption
>> too. But Boost also serves practical purpose, and if people can't use your
>> library then that just limits its usefulness. So unless you trying to make
>> some academic work here, the library should be more portable.
> And if the maintainers have to spend twice as long implementing it to
> be C++03-compatible and it isn't ready to be included in Boost until
> next year that also limits its usefulness, to *everyone* not just the
> C++03 crowd.
I'd like to widen this discussion; it's shouldn't be "C++03" vs. "C++11" .
The correct question is "How should boost support/deal with the changes in C++?"
For a long time, that was C++03 (and TR1).
Now we have C++11.
A year from now, (seriously - next June) we will have C++14 - and some compilers have (partial) C++14 support today.
What is the best way forward for the people who use and/or develop boost libraries?
Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists_at_[hidden]>
A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
-- Yu Suzuki
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk