Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 11:21:52
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Michael Caisse wrote:
> 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.
I agree completely. If you're working towards a Boost that can assume
C++14 compiler conformance, I don't see why there needs to be
restrictions to build against any specific MSVC version.
The large VC user base is not an acceptable answer in this case: Every
VC user is not going to upgrade to VC14 simply because it is going to
be substantially more standards conforming. Too many VC users are not
even using VC12, or VC11, yet. There are teams at Microsoft not even
using VC12 or VC11 yet (I worked on at least two of them) and the
former offers substantially better language feature support over VC10.
I can't imagine this magically changing with VC14's release.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk