Boost logo

Boost :

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 <> 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
throw double-negatives?)

> 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
> modularization,

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at