Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: Pete Bartlett (pete_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-19 08:48:32
> On 18 Feb 2018, at 21:36, Edward Diener via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 2/18/2018 3:44 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>>> On 2/18/18 2:12 AM, Olaf van der Spek via Boost wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost
>>> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> What does "drop support" mean?
>>>> a) libraries should fail to compile with C++03? Any library which does so
>>>> should be considered "broken" in some sense?
>>>> b) libraries should/must be implemented in C++11(+?)? Any library which
>>>> isn't should/would be considered "broken"
>>>> c) libraries should/must be compilable with C++11(+?)? Any libraries which
>>>> don't would be considered broken.
>>> None of the above, but you already knew that, didn't you?
>> No. It's a serious question. The phrase "drop support" is confusing to me in the context of Boost.
> Exactly ! There has been lots of noise about "dropping c++03" support but very little substance which explains what it means.
To speak frankly, only you and Robert are being pedantic on the issue. The rest of the threadâs contributors seem to have a common understanding of what âdropping supportâ is whether you are talking about new or existing libraries.
Unfortunately the meta-problem is that the API compatibility issue is extremely bikeshedable, as this thread shows. Thereâs no definitive answer as different maintainers will attach different value to a library working with a particular compiler.
To continue the bikeshed analogy, the nuclear power power plant bit is the ABI problem. As someone (Peter?) said quite a few messages ago now, there isnât a good solution within Boost, so we talk about a different problem.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk