Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-19 17:35:55
On 5/19/17 9:18 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost
> While it is true the letter of the wording regarding Boost library
> requirements do not mandate support for earlier compilers, I believe
> it is in bad taste to use such wording to provide cover for
> unnecessarily complex code.
I don't think it's a great idea to make presumptions about motives here.
Boost has traditionally been willing to accept code which conforms to
only to the latest standard. This has been a very good thing. On the
other hand, library authors have a natural desire to see their code
widely used and have traditionally been desirous of maintaining backward
compatibility when reasonable to do so. This is one reason why most
widely used libraries support older compilers. For niche libraries it
doesn't matter. I don't think that this is an issue.
I feel that Outcome is sufficiently narrow
maybe you mean wide rather than narrow
> in scope and broad in utility that it should not be limited only to "a
> compiler made last year or newer."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk