Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compilerrequirements.
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-05 10:45:00
on Sun Aug 04 2013, "John Maddock" <john-AT-johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
>> Do you have an opinion on the original change? The only contentious part
>> of it seems to be dropping Visual C++ 7.0.
> Well I'm sort of sitting on the fence ;-)
> I suspect from a purely practical perspective, few libraries are still
> compatible with that compiler, so I'm inclined to agree we might as
> well drop support. Of course that opens a whole can of worms, because
> if we agreed to that then there's a whole slew of config macros (and
> associated workarounds) that can be removed.
> So I'm inclined to agree to whatever you want ;-) But perhaps more to
> the point we should be doing whatever our users want - so perhaps it
> would be better to open up a discussion on boost-users on which
> compilers we can drop and work from there. If I have a criticism of
> this current suggestion it's that the motivation is the wrong way
> around - in principle we shouldn't be dropping support for something
> just because it make modularization easier, even if in the end,
> dropping support for that feature may well be the right thing to do.
Why not? We make decisions all the time about what's worth supporting
in order to move Boost forward effectively.
-- Dave Abrahams