Subject: Re: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-21 12:58:44
Le 21/05/2016 à 18:53, Hartmut Kaiser a écrit :
>> Le 21/05/2016 à 15:23, Hartmut Kaiser a écrit :
>>>>> I presented a plan for how to technically transition to a C++ 14 only
>>>>> Boost 2.0 at my C++ Now 2015 presentation:
>>>>> The talk was well attended, and by much of the more senior Boost
>>>>> community members.
>>> What does it mean 'a library is C++14 only'?
>> I suspect it means to support >=C++14 compilers only.
>>> Does that mean I'm allowed to use only features which have been added by
>> Not for me. For me it means it uses ar least one C++14 feature and needs
>> a C++14 compiler. The library doesn't supports C++11 compiler nor C++14
>> compilers that don't support the used feature.
>>> Or does that mean a library is allowed to use all features defined in
>>> C++14 standard?
>> This one. This doesn't mean that it uses all of them, just that the
>> author wants the freedom of using them.
>>> If the former, then am I still allowed to use 'int' and 'for'?
>>> If the latter, Boost is already C++14 only (afaict, no library uses
>>> features yet).
>> No in my view.
> Why not? If a library is allowed to use all features as defined by C++14 it
> is - by extension - allowed to use C++98 features as well. But this does not
> mean that it is _required_ to use C++14. Thus, Boost as it is today, is
> C++14 only (it does not use anything outside of it).
>>> Go figure. So let's drop this nonsense of declaring something C++14
>> Tell me if my alternative view of what "C++14 only" could mean change
>> your view.
> As said, I find the classification of a library as being 'C++14 only' to be
> completely useless.
>> Wether we want a "C++14 only" Boost version is another thing.
> So in your view 'C++14 only Boost' means that it will not compile with
> compilers which don't support C++14.
> Wouldn't it be better to talk about minimal _compiler_ requirements instead
> of maximal _library_ allowances?
> In my view talking about this as 'library requires C++14 compiler support'
> would make much more sense.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk