Subject: Re: [boost] Guidelines to implement Boost library evolution policy (was Boost 2.0)
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-08 05:16:29
Rob Stewart wrote:
>>The Jeff Garland case study tells us that the past problem is already
>>using Boost from the present or the past. You don't need to solve that
> Who was suggesting that?
The author of the document about the future of Boost currently being
>From the document:
> ... illustrates why Boost continues to support older compilers and
> standard libraries
And it then illustrates that 'older' means 1996 era compilers.
If you think it should mean something different, I recommend you edit the
document, or qualify what 'older' means.
Robert Ramey also emailed to make that point in much stronger terms (and on
very dubious claims).
Robert, if you want to participate in the discussion I recommend you resolve
you problem with posting to this mailing list.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk