Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-09 20:26:31

On 2/9/2018 10:45 AM, Thomas Heller via Boost wrote:
> Am 09.02.2018 4:21 nachm. schrieb "Edward Diener via Boost" <
> boost_at_[hidden]>:
> 
> On 2/9/2018 4:49 AM, Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:
> 
>> What do you propose to do with libraries that want to keep C++03
>>> compatibility and rely on Boost.Test in tests?
>>>
>>
>> Demand that they be upgraded or drop them in favour of better-behaved ones.
>>
>> Only the future is ahead. The past is irrelevant.
>>
>> A library that demands c++03 is not a c++ library. It’s merely a blocker
>> to productivity. It must adapt or die.
>>
> 
> Since C++03 is the lowest level of C++ standards compatibility, it can
> hardly "demand" anything. If you think it does please point out a C++03
> construct which is not supported by later C++ standards.
> 
> 
> std::auto_ptr.

OK, but That is a "library" rather than a language construct.

I am all for C++03 libraries upgrading their implementation if a later 
version of C++ drops support for a previously supported standard 
library. I was one of the many people who worked to change a number of 
Boost libraries from using std::auto_ptr to using std::unique_ptr when 
it was appropriate.

In general though, while I do encourage new library developers to use 
later versions of the C++ standard if they feel that it will make their 
library better, I do not see the purpose of dropping support for 
existing C++03 libraries that are successful in their goals. Nor do I 
see any purpose for mandating what level of C++ support any given 
library must meet to be part of Boost.

> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 Feb 2018, at 09:45, Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/09/18 12:13, Olaf van der Spek via Boost wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Raffi Enficiaud via Boost
>>>> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * is there any better option? All the other options I see are even
>>>>> worse.
>>>>>
>>>> Isn't it time to require C++11 to avoid spending / wasting time on these
>>>> issues?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you propose to do with libraries that want to keep C++03
>>> compatibility and rely on Boost.Test in tests?
>>>
>>