Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Guidelines to implement Boost library evolution policy (was Boost 2.0)
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-08 06:17:10

On June 8, 2014 5:16:29 AM EDT, Stephen Kelly <hello_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>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
>>>problem again.
>> 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.

As you said, that problem is already solved. There's nothing that must be done to solve it. The point is that creating a new version of Boost with no support for old platforms does not provide a transition to the brave new world of C++11, 14, and beyond.

The policy also permits library authors to break with the past by conditionally adding new features to an existing library, by maintaining two libraries, or by creating entirely new libraries that require new language features.

There's nothing in that policy that requires support for any particular old platform. Add always, library authors and maintainers are free to drop support for older platforms add they see fit.


(Sent from my portable computation engine)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at