Subject: Re: [boost] Guidelines to implement Boost library evolution policy (was Boost 2.0)
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-07 16:01:10
Beman Dawes wrote:
> The Boost Steering Committee set the overall policy for Boost library
> evolution to C++11, C++14, and beyond at its May 2014 meeting in Aspen.
> Guidelines to implement that policy are now available at
I find that the case study from Jeff Garland leads to the wrong conclusion.
The conclusion in the document is that the case study justifies continuing
to support old/ancient compilers.
What the case study tells us is that Boost (which version? Let's assume a
recent version) helps to migrate from a compiler from the ancient past to a
compiler from the very recent past (GCC 4.8). The case study looks to the
If you want to evolve Boost, then appeal to the use-case of migrating from
GCC 4.8 to whatever will be in use 6-10 years from now. That would be
looking to the future. Then, thinking mathematically, any migration use-case
in the future can be reduced to a previously solved problem plus whatever
future Boost does.
The Jeff Garland case study tells us that the past problem is already solved
using Boost from the present or the past. You don't need to solve that
Solve the present and future problems instead in the evolution of Boost. Put
case studies for those in your document instead of the Jeff Garland case
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk