Subject: Re: [boost] transforming ex. boost lib into C++11-only lib?
From: Ahmed Charles (acharles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-23 08:38:58
> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 10:21:05 +0100
> From: rbock_at_[hidden]
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] transforming ex. boost lib into C++11-only lib?
> On 2015-01-24 18:38, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > Roland Bock wrote:
> >> On 2015-01-24 17:13, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >>> Pete bartlett wrote:
> >>>>> OK - thx for your suggestions.
> >>>>> Who do I have to ask for an additional coroutine2 ?
> >>>> Coroutine11, perhaps?
> >>> In fact, make TWO new libraries: Coroutine11 and Coroutine14!
> >> IF Coroutine benefits from C++14 over C++11, I would skip the C++11
> >> version and go for the C++14 version directly.
> > FYI: I was kidding.
> In hindsight it seems obvious :-)
I just noticed this thread and I find it weird that no one pointed to the requirements for being a Boost library: http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html
There are no requirements about which standard is required for use, only that the library be portable and follow the standard. I also did not noticed any requirements which restrict breaking API or ABI compatibility between versions of Boost (and in fact, various Boost libraries have done this in the past, in some cases due to wanting to be compatible with changes made during standardization).
And, most importantly, every Boost maintainer is the Monarch with the library, the Kingdom. So, far be it for anyone to suggest that you can't break compatibility with older versions of the standard in your own library if you so desire.
Everyone else gave answers that seemed to be about their feelings rather than actual Boost policy, though if my interpretation of documented policy is incorrect, I'd be interested in knowing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk