Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-05 23:10:09

on Mon Aug 05 2013, Stephen Kelly <> wrote:

> On 08/05/2013 04:32 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> on Sun Aug 04 2013, Stephen Kelly <> wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2013 01:31 PM, Daniel James wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 01:21 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>>>> On 08/04/2013 01:10 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> Roughly backwards through what I've quoted above:
> Forget that static_assert is a small dependency.
> My point was that increasing the compiler requirement makes one library
> not depend on the other in at least two cases (config->core and
> any->static_assert, and to some extent, but not a full extent,
> any->type_traits).
> The core->config issue is not a special case, because the exact same
> case exists for any->static_assert.
> To be clear, the 'case' is that 'when we bump compiler requirements, we
> can remove library dependencies'.
> The compiler requirement bump I posted patches for has benefits and very
> small impact, so should be a no-brainer and independently justifiable.
> I haven't investigated other benefits of doing the bump, but just
> running 'git grep -w 1300' in boost-trunk shows me that there will be
> more code and workarounds to remove. How that can possibly be a can of
> worms I still don't know...


> I can just wait and see if someone commits my patches after whatever
> process or user surveys you want to do, then I can investigate more.

For my part, I think the changes you proposed so far should be
considered uncontroversial and simply applied without further

Dave Abrahams

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at