Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 11:39:06

On 05/21/2014 06:59 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 21 May 2014 at 16:05, Peter Dimov wrote:
> 

<snip>

> 
>> 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'm not certain which population you are using for consensus. The
barriers of getting a C++11 only library into Boost are currently the
difficulties raised by Robert Ramey in the "Thoughts of Boost v2" branch
of this thread. Another barrier is the submission of a C++11 only library.

As announced in the annual Future of Boost session at C++Now, Sebastian
Redl will be drafting how-to suggestions for integrating C++11/14 only
libraries into Boost. While Robert's concerns must all be addressed,
this isn't a problem that is entirely unique and one that we haven't
dealt with before.

michael

-- 
Michael Caisse
ciere consulting
ciere.com