Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-19 09:54:31
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost
> Sent: 18 February 2018 20:45
> To: Olaf van der Spek via Boost
> Cc: Robert Ramey
> Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
> 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.
The phrase "drop support" has *no meaning* in the context of Boost.
PS Remins me of a favorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra aphorism is this one:
"The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim.
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk