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

Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-18 16:33:48

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Vinnie Falco via Boost
> Sent: 18 February 2018 02:34
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Vinnie Falco
> Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
> 
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > What does "drop support" mean?

What do you mean by "require C++11" ? People keep repeating this but 
everyone seems to have a different meaning. To me it actually means 
absolutely nothing.

+1

Boost doesn't 'require' any compiler and Boost doesn't 'support' any compiler.
 
> It means I would not invest any energy in C++03 compatibility. If it
> happens to be compatible, that's fine. But I wouldn't go out of my way
> to make it so. And where possible I would use C++11 features and
> idioms since they improve both the interface and the implementation.

That's *exactly* what is happening now!

And some people are even writing libraries that require C++17 (Outcome?) and beyond (YAP?).

We should only be cautious about accepting libraries requiring C++ standards that are in vaporware mode like C++23 ;-)

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]