Re: [boost] Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue member requirements)

Subject: Re: [boost] Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue member requirements)
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-03 21:09:17

On April 3, 2015 6:32:48 PM EDT, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 4/3/2015 4:33 PM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
>
> > I've been slowly improving Boost.Variant for two last years to
> achieve
> > result close to egg.variant. It is good that egg.variant exist and
> I'd like
> > to see it in Boost. Two things disturb me:
> > * egg.variant it requires a modern C++11 compiler in C+11 mode
> (Boost tries
> > to stick to C++98)
> 
> This should not bother you. Boost should encourage programmers to
> write 
> a library using the C++11 or C++14 standard if the domain of the
> library 
> requires such use. It is always nice to have a library work with C++98
> compilers but nothing should stand in the way of Boost libraries 
> requiring C++11/C++14 compilers.

Boost does not try "to stick to C++98". If there's no hardship, we encourage _continued_ C++98/03 compatibility, but new libraries need not consider the older language.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)