Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-17 13:17:59

On Monday 17 June 2013 10:39:10 Michael Marcin wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 10:29 AM, 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.
> Seems an undue constraint on a new library to me.
> Adding a new C++11 library harms no one that doesn't have have a C++11
> compiler.
> If you need a C++03 version of a C++11 only library and you feel it is
> not an unreasonable amount of work to provide you could just fork the
> library into your own github and do the backporting.

I wasn't suggesting making the library strictly C++03-compatible. My main
point was that the library has to be compatible with _todays_ and even better
- _yesterdays_ compilers to be actually useful. My choice of "reasonable" time
frame is 3-5 years, as I mentioned. That includes VS 2008 and VS 2010, which
already had some C++11 features, including rvalue references. Making VS 2013
absolute minimum is a no-go, IMHO.

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