Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-31 18:06:08

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:53 AM, Paul A. Bristow via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andrzej
> Krzemienski via Boost
> > Sent: 30 January 2018 19:34
> > To: boost_at_[hidden]
> > Cc: Andrzej Krzemienski
> > Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to
> Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
> >
> <snip>
>
> > What is the reason for Boost.Outcome requiring C++14? If it
> > is the `constexpr` guarantees, could the `constexpr` be just dropped for
> > non-C++14 compilers?
>
> Of course, Boost has some macros that might help with this
>
> BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST ...
>

constexpr is C++11.

> But I can't see any objection to requiring a C++14 compiler.  I suspect
> Outcome will mainly or only be used for new projects, a good
> time to start using the most recent (and fewer bugged) compiler.
>

You'd be surprised how difficult it is for a large corporation to switch
compiler versions. I am not sure what's the right compiler for Outcome to
require, but certainly requiring C++11 is better than C++14.

Emil