Subject: Re: [boost] RFC : About forking a C++11 standard library and adapt it to C++98 compilers
From: Joseph Van Riper (fleeb.fantastique_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-06 05:16:11
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> Some of us have to work yet with C++98 compiler at work (due to well
> know reasons) and this for a long time. This is a reality.
> I was wondering about forking a public domain C++11/14/17 standard
> library and adapt it to C++98 compilers. This library could be seen as
> another TR1, an extension of the C++03 standard library.
> Does this make any sens? Would this project be of interest for the
> Boost/C++ community?
Yes. At least for what we do where I work.
The cyber-security field works with very old machines, either for forensics
(people forget they have some old machine until it gets hacked and some old
process that always "just worked" stops working), teaching (teaching old,
outmoded techniques helps to illustrate cyber security problems without
giving people tools for modern exploitation), or competitions.
I kind of hate having to work with clunky, antediluvian C++ compilers that
magnify the level of woe required to deal with old machinery. Especially
while the rest of the C++ world moves on to the spiffy-shiny features found
in the later compilers. Having at least a library that helps us use some
of those nifty features can help us use our skills on more modern projects
when we move on to another job, while easing the efforts required to do our
Anyway, if you find that this will be useful to you at your work we will
> need your participation. Would you be interested in working on it?
Hmmm... am I even knowledgeable enough?
While I may find myself learning quite a lot about C++ by studying the
boost code people write, I am also humbled by what I see there. I fear I
am only beginning to dip into some of the intermediate meta-programming
techniques that seem to confer tremendous power to this language.
as a Boost community project?
> outside Boost, as an independent project?
The boost 'brand' confers a certain gravitas. If you wish to maintain this
gravitas in the new library, I'd say keep the boost brand, but require the