Subject: Re: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-26 14:07:23
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov via Boost
> Sent: 26 August 2018 14:02
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Peter Dimov
> Subject: Re: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support
> Edward Diener wrote:
> > Are you going to force it to use some C++11 on up feature in its code so
> > that it no longer compiles at the C++03 level, even when it has no use for
> > any C++11 on up feature anywhere in its implementation ?
> He wasn't suggesting anything like that. His point is simply that if a
> library is heavily depended upon, the author's decision to drop C++03
> support affects all downstream libraries, which by virtue of having this
> dependency will also lose C++03 support even if they themselves use no
> non-C++03 features.
> Consequently, said author would be reluctant to break C++03 compatibility
> because it would affect more than just one library.
Do we have any idea how many real examples of this dependency there are?
> But if we officially "drop C++03 support" he'll be freer to do so.
And feel less obliged to try to provide a 'workaround' where possible
do something old-school
do something trendier
and instead saying
#error " C++03 not supported!"
Can we make may those who wish to 'Officially' drop support for C++03 feel better
(and quiet the repeated requests)
Officially Deprecating use of C++03 compilers and use of -std=c++03
(and next year deprecating C++11 ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk