Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 11:11:55

On 05/21/2014 04:49 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 19 May 2014 at 18:51, Michael Caisse wrote:
>> On 05/19/2014 06:47 PM, David Stone wrote:
>>> As the author of bounded::integer, I do intend to submit my library to
>>> Boost at some point, for whatever that is worth. It's just not in a state
>>> that is ready to submit yet (but soon it will be). I suspect that, as a
>>> C++14 library, it will have an interesting process getting in, but maybe
>>> the next Visual Studio preview will be out by then, which looks like it
>>> might support all the features I need.
>> We welcome C++14 libraries and I see no problem with a submission on
>> that basis alone if it is supported by at least two compilers.
> For me personally, I would vote for an instant rejection for any
> library not compilable to the MSVC ABI irrespective of any other
> factors. The MSVC ecosystem is too large to ignore to call code
> portable without compatibility.
> I'll happily accept a MSVC CTP compiler, or even WinClang if they fix
> SEH support. It just needs to spit out working MSVC ABI binaries.
> VS2014 is a serious improvement over VS2013, but the lack of member
> function constexpr is going to be a problem.
> Niall

You are at liberty to do that of course; however, there is no
requirement that a library support MSVC.

If I were the review manager it would not pose a barrier to acceptance.
The consensus among the Steering Committee is that at least two
main-stream compilers are supported. GCC and Clang would represent that

MSVC's inability to keep up with the standard should not result in
library authors performing acrobatic work-arounds if it isn't one of
their targets. The compiler vendor will eventually catch up. For wider
acceptance/usage of their library, the author may want to work around
deficient compilers.


Michael Caisse
ciere consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at