Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-05 23:05:35

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

> On 08/05/2013 04:30 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> "It is not unreasonable to think" doesn't demonstrate anything, so
>> it's also (ahem) not unreasonable to want to see more evidence. :-)
> I've looked at boost::any in an updated boost repo (mine was an obsolete
> boost-zero repo which has not been updated in a long time). The uses of
> other features of type_traits has grown there, so more modularization
> work would be needed.

Not surprising.

> Actually I thought that upgrading the compiler requirement would be such
> a no-brainer as to require no further evidence of its usefulness than I
> already presented. If that's not the case, then *shrug*.

Well, I can see it's useful in principle, but it's quite possible that
once you get past the very oldest compilers, the wins from further
narrowing compiler support drop sharply.

>>> 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?
> If that's how boost works, then you're telling me :).

That's how Boost works. One of the ideas of the Git separation (and
hopefully eventual Ryppl) transition is to give maintainers more of a
sense of control over these things. I'm sure the commitment to quality
is there, but I think there's probably a lot of resignation over the
seemingly-intractable morasse.

Dave Abrahams

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