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

Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: Raffi Enficiaud (raffi.enficiaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-12 07:32:35

Le 12.02.18 à 02:17, Peter Dimov via Boost a écrit :
> Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> degski wrote:
>> > On 9 February 2018 at 14:48, Edward Diener via Boost >
>> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > The issue with Boost Test is that if it now requires a C++11 level
>> > > compiler to use it, every library which tests itself using Boost
>> Test > > now requires a C++11 level compiler to run its tests.
>> >
>> >
>> > So, unless this requirement is lifted, the Rubicon has already been
>> > crossed...
>>
>> In a sense, yes, but Boost.Test C++03 from release 1.66 still exists.
>>
>> So those who stay with C++03 won't be able to rely on the
>> tester-runners to test updated libraries, but they can still use
>> Boost.Test C++03 to run the test themselves - if they care.
> 
> The practical effect of Boost.Test requiring C++11 will be that
> everything C++03 in the test matrix (using Boost.Test) will fail.
> 
> We'll have to deal with that in some way. One option is to just stop
> testing C++03. Another is to migrate the libraries away from Boost.Test.
> Yet another is to do nothing and pay no attention to failures.
> 
> Number two is the only option making any sense to me, 

Are you serious? I committed to maintain Boost.Test, not to burry it.
Boost.Test **does** support C++03 and C++11. Boost.Test has values in
the C++ testing ecosystem, there is no point in killing it.

The initial question was a technical one, something that did not appear
obvious to me about mixed APIs spanning several dialects. I am not
asking for people to tell what the fate of Boost.Test should be: I am
well aware that Boost.Test needs to continue supporting C++03, I am
taking care of that. And yes, Boost.Test is used by people outside the
Boost community.

> but keep in mind
> that many of the affected libraries have no active maintainers, and the
> CMT is not terribly underworked.