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: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 09:59:07

On 21 May 2014 at 16:05, 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.

And me and Paul *did* write a new C++ 11 library. When Paul described 
during his talk at C++ Now about his extensive efforts backporting 
AFIO to meet the portability requirement, he received extensive 
comment from the audience about the ridiculousness of such an 
endeavour. Yet that thread was why we bothered.

> 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 look forward to the day when the first C++ 11 library enters Boost. 
But I also recognise that before that can happen, a consensus on how 
we're going to handle that will have to be reached. Right now the 
consensus appears to be to use #ifdef and bundle it in with the 03 
libraries. I think that outcome the worst of all outcomes, but it 
appears to be the majority view. That kind of outcome is what caused 
me to raise the possibility of a C++ 11 only fork.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/