Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-05 10:30:12
on Sun Aug 04 2013, Stephen Kelly <steveire-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/04/2013 12:57 PM, Daniel James wrote:
>>> That obviously does not help with forward momentum
>>> in efforts like this, and I expect the boost community has a solution to
>>> that problem.
>> Do you have any evidence for that? No one opposed your original change.
> I don't have specific information on what minimum compiler version would
> enable which interdependency culling, no. I only have the hard
> information that increasing the requirement allows cutting the
> config->core dependency, and the any->static_assert dependency.
> It is not unreasonable to think that the pattern ends there,
Did you mean the opposite? I presume you are arguing that the pattern
probably continues. (People who make non-trivial arguments shouldn't
> so I don't think further evidence is necessary.
"It is not unreasonable to think" doesn't demonstrate anything, so
it's also (ahem) not unreasonable to want to see more evidence. :-)
> I think what is necessary is for the boost community to pick increased
> compiler requirements for the purpose of proceeding with
Why is that necessary? Aren't individual library authors fully capable
of making the decision to drop support for an old compiler because it's
pulling in a dependency they don't really want?
-- Dave Abrahams
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk