Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
From: Sohail Somani (sohail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-16 14:07:36
On 16/05/2014 1:10 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
[snip a large list of very good suggestions for going forward]
All of this sounds really good, your statements about "vested interests"
aside. I'm not one of them, but if I were, maybe I'd find it a little
offensive. I'm sure everyone here wants to do a good job.
Not because of politics or anything, but I would say that you do this
independently of the usual Boost repo. Let there be a "C++03 Boost" and
a "C++-latest-but-1 Boost". Share as little as possible.
I say a big fat yes to CMake. I love the elegance of bjam but CMake +
Ninja is ridiculous. CMake is elegant in its own way. And let's not give
compiler vendors a pass by using their compiler as a baseline. Have a
policy that says that we drop support for compilers that don't support
(say) the penultimate standard. If the C++ standard is becoming more
iterative, then the compilers need to be as well. So when C++17 is out,
the library would support only C++14 with compiler workarounds only for
C++14 and up.
I would not bring over any existing libraries unless the authors wanted
to do so themselves and if they are also going to sunset the old C++03
library. For this reason, I'd start with new libraries that are needed
just for C++11 code.
A lot of talk... But it needs buy in.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk