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 09:11:49

On 21 May 2014 14:05, Peter Dimov wrote:
> 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:
>>
>> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/c-11-td4648532.html
>
>
> 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?

I said people *should not* hold back development, I didn't say people
*are* holding back development.

Of course it's up to the people actually writing the libraries to
decide what features they want to use. I hope those people continue to
push Boost in new and interesting directions.