Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost.test regression or behavior change (was Re: Boost.lockfree)
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-06 14:32:21

Edward Diener wrote:

> On 10/5/2015 1:51 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Edward Diener wrote:
>>> But let's just move on. No one is seeking to lay blame on anyone for
>>> anything. Lots of libraries use Boost Test which need to be tested in
>>> C++03 mode so if Boost Test wants to move forward with a version which
>>> only supports testing in C++11 mode in order to use C++11 facilities,
>>> which is perfectly reasonable, it should do so as a separate library
>>> forked from the current version of Boost Test.
>> Sorry if someone answered this already, but I'm curious:
>> 1) Why not let Boost.Test define its own requirements? I thought that was
>> a maintainer decision only. I thought that was a core value of Boost?
> If your library is depended on by upteenth other Boost libraries plus
> who knows how many other end-users, many of whom's use will be broken by
> your change, don't you think it behooves you to think that your change
> may not be the best thing to do ?
> If CMake were changed to only support builds where C++11 mode was being
> used, don't you think you might here about from your end-users ? I know
> that would be a ridiculous change, but I hope I have made my point.

Thanks for sharing your perspective on that first question!


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