Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-17 13:10:08
On 17 June 2013 16:47, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
It's worse than that, they could easily loose the motivation to
finish. Compatibility work is not an enjoyable programming task, and
there are already more than enough hoops to go through to get a
library into boost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk