Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-12 04:27:00
On 2/11/2018 6:46 PM, degski via Boost wrote:
> On 11 February 2018 at 17:01, Edward Diener via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]
>> You are saying then that what you mean by "C++03 is not supported" is
>> compiling in C++03 mode.
> No, I mean that if the test suite (of a library) cannot compile with C++03,
> one has to qualify the library as non-C++03 (even if it might on the
> surface look as if the library (not the test-suite) *does* compile with
> C++03). If I cannot test it, it's not vali(date)d code.
You are saying that any library which compiles in C++03 mode is not
supported if uses Boost Test for its testing framework, otherwise it is
still still supported.
>> ... But I hope you realize that is different from saying that C++03
>> libraries, meaning libraries not using C++11or above constructs or
>> libraries, should not be part of Boost.
> I agree with you, I don't think they should not be part of boost. However,
> I do think that to at least support moves (not only the semantics) (for all
> libraries) when compiled with C++11 or above, should be on the road-map,
> and then of course CXXD (so I get the std::-equivalent of the library in
> the standard I'm compiling the library with).
Thanks for the CXXD support. If more people supported CXXD, and someone
recommended it for review, and someone wanted to be the review manager,
I certainly would like it be considered as a Boost library.
OTOH I think you can encourage feature addition for a particular library
but I do not think forcing some C++11 on up construct or library to be
used is something that Boost ought to be doing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk