Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] transforming ex. boost lib into C++11-only lib?
From: Ben Pope (benpope81_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-22 10:37:19

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:20 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
> Hello,
> is it permitted to transform an existing boost library into a C++11-only
> library?
> best,
> Oliver

There has been some discussion on a C++11-only Boost, and Niall has
BindLib-soon-to-be-called-something-else-lib, which may reify some of
the specifics surrounding that.

In my personal opinion, I would say go for it (I've upgraded to C++14 on
multiple compilers and platforms); anybody that cannot upgrade to a
C++11 compiler should either fight harder, do it anyway and then ask for
forgiveness, or change jobs (in that order).

However, some authors/maintainers of various libraries are stuck with
older compilers for their customers and there's pretty much no way you
can convince them to help in a C++11-only effort, or to help maintain a
C++11-only branch. Also, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Ultimately, if it's your library and you feel it impractical to support
pre C++11 in your library, that's your choice, but you risk upsetting
customers if you break existing code.

So... onto the discussions of inline namespaces, suitable notice and
backporting bugfixes.

To pick a specific example (and not to pick on anybody or any library in
particular, but just because it's in my mind), I would say it's easier
and more convenient to move to say, Thread/v4 than it is to consistently
supply myriad defines across multiple build systems.

I would say go for a V(x+1) library and enjoy your coding life. Be
responsible where bugfixes are appropriate, but don't let it prevent you
from making progress*.

*Really; please don't let it prevent you from making progress.


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