Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-17 15:03:06
Daniel James wrote:
> On 17 June 2013 18:17, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
>> On Monday 17 June 2013 10:39:10 Michael Marcin wrote:
>>> 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.
> The portability requirements disagree.
+1 - agree. This has always been the standard and it has worked well.
In a practical sense, if one makes new a C++11 only package - no
current user is impacted. If someone want's to use it, they'll just have
to find a way to upgrade. This is not an unfair, nor unrealistic policy.
And it's better for C++. If some submission is very populer but only
supports C++11, it will help drive C++ forward - which to me is one
of the principle goals and accomplishments of Boost so far.
And the work in making a new submission backward compatible is
basically wasted and the value of this work diminishes to nothing over time.
Let's keep Boost looking forward !
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk