Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-04 07:30:37
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 01:14 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On 08/04/2013 01:08 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> > So all the dependents pulled in by a modularization system
> > do not affect the compiler requirements at all.
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.
This was all in response to Bo Persson's post:
> Should it? If one library can be dependent on 35 others (boost::any?) it
> sure seems like an agreed upon base line could be useful.
As I understood it the point was that because boost::any depends on 35
libraries, a common base line is required for all 35 libraries. But many
of these libraries don't actually affect boost::any, so I don't the
point holds - i.e. unordered could require gcc 4.5, but boost::any would
continue to work with gcc 4.4. This is a separate issue to how compiler
requirements affect modularization.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk