Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
Date: 2014-05-21 21:20:00
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
> > 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.
How about the burden of supplying a conforming compiler be put on MS rather than on everyone else? I.e. MSVC needs to catch up rather than have libraries lag to support it. Beyond that, MSVC's dominance on Windows is a huge problem--just as GCC's dominance on Linux is a the problem. MS should not get to define the C++ ABI on Windows. They can define the ABI for the binaries produced by their own compiler. IMO, Clang even attempting to be compatible with anything other than the C ABI is a bad idea.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk