Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re: Thoughts on Boost v2)

Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re: Thoughts on Boost v2)
From: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 09:04:51

On 21 May 2014 13:49, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 21 May 2014 at 15:45, Peter Dimov wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> > Those who want Boost to provide a bridge between C++03 and C++11 because
>> > they can't use C+11 should stick to "Legacy Boost" (whether that's v1.x or
>> > some fork that goes into maintenance mode) and not hold back interesting
>> > new development.
>>
>> I don't understand. Who are those hypothetical people holding back
>> interesting new development?
>
> Start reading at:
>
> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/c-11-td4648532.html

Thanks, that's exactly the thread I was trying to remember.

"I used to see Boost as an empowering library, enhancing and evening
out the playing field among the compilers out there."

Evening out the playing field between compilers is what I meant by a
bridge between C++03 and C++11. Maybe I should more accurately have
said a crutch for legacy compilers.

"Pretty much anything that fakes variadics is under the constant
pressure  to disregard compatibility and "just use variadic templates
already".  Thankfully the authors of those libraries haven't folded."

Those are the kind of statements I disagree with. But then I'm just
one voice, and haven't even contributed test results to Boost in many
years, so my opinion shouldn't count for much :-)