Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re:Thoughts on Boost v2)
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 09:05:04
Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 21 May 2014 at 15:45, Peter Dimov wrote:
> > I don't understand. Who are those hypothetical people holding back
> > interesting new development?
> Start reading at:
That was a year ago, and it's just words. If I decide to write a new
C++11-only library, archived messages in a year-old mailing list thread will
not stop me.
But, you'll say, the library will not pass review due to being C++11. Will
it not? On what do we base this prediction?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk