Subject: Re: [boost] Guidelines to implement Boost library evolution policy (was Boost 2.0)
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-09 07:22:32
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Stephen Kelly <hello_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Niall Douglas wrote:
> > On 8 Jun 2014 at 11:16, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >> >>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
> >> >>problem again.
> >> [snip]
> >> And it then illustrates that 'older' means 1996 era compilers.
> >> If you think it should mean something different, I recommend you edit
> >> document, or qualify what 'older' means.
> > No, I think Jeff's use case does refer to that age of compiler. To my
> > best understanding, he had a large code base based on ancient
> > compilers which he successfully got compiling with C++ 11 mode
> > switched on thanks to Boost. I understand he believes that a more
> > rapid switch of Boost to requiring all C++ 11 would be a great loss
> > to Boost and to those in his situation. I understand he therefore
> > believes such ideas should be opposed.
> It looks like the document about the future of Boost is making it a policy
> that no compiler support should be dropped ever and that ancients are
> supported by policy.
To try to reduce the chance of a reader jumping to that conclusion, I've
changed the case study introduction from:
This case study from Jeff Garland illustrates why Boost continues to
support older compilers and standard libraries.
This case study from Jeff Garland illustrates why many Boost libraries
leave old compiler and standard library workarounds in place as long as
they don't impede library evolution:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk