Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-06 04:16:54

> 2. Those who are not ready to upgrade to new version of the compiler, are
> very likely not going to upgrade to new version of boost, so this
> discussion is irrelevant for them.

I disagree, folks don't upgrade just because they have a new compiler,
they upgrade Boost to get the latest bug fixes.

>> Therefore, the current consensus is that existing libraries should not
>> increase their standards requirements. New libraries are free to decide
>> their standards requirements (although it will probably be questioned
>> during a formal review.)
> 1. There also libraries which are actively maintained and extended and
> those which are not.

The point is, your changes break Boost.Test on innumerable older
compilers. I just had a look at the test matrix for the Math lib and
there's so much stuff failing now from Boost.Test that I can simply no
longer tell what needs fixing. That at least is a maintained library,
if I can find the time I might do something about it by removing all
Boost.Test dependencies - though heaven only knows there are way better
uses for my time. The situation for older less-well maintained
libraries is frankly pretty dire: do you suppose that the community
maintenance team is going to rewrite the the test suites for all the
unmaintained libraries? How about libraries where the maintainer is
only occasionally around here?

I think you greatly underestimate how much this hurts (again). I
sincerely hope I'm wrong, but for authors who are only just finding time
to maintain their Boost stuff, this could easily cause them to walk.

Regards, John.

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