Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 13:09:31
>> 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.
I think this depends on the library: is a port to C++03 easy? Trivial?
Or is the whole focus of the library C++11?
Life would be much easier if GCC was C++11 by default.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk