Subject: Re: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-27 17:59:44
On 8/27/2018 12:29 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Glen Fernandes Ð²ÑÐ¾ÑÐµ:
>> Do you have an example of a Boost library author or maintainer that
>> has refused (either a pull request, or a other feature request) to
>> leverage C++11+ features (after detecting them with Boost.Config, of
>> course) to provide some more optimal implementation in their library,
>> or provide a new feature their library?
>> There are Boost libraries are committed to supporting C++03, but they
>> also leverage C++11, C++14, C++17 features when available, because
>> this is what those particular library authors/maintainers are happy to
>> do. (Myself included: I would not refuse to take advantage of a C++17
>> feature for C++17 users, while still supporting C++11 for C++11 users).
> Doing this in a header-only library is a recipe for (usually
> asymptomatic) ODR violations, if the library is used by two translation
> units with different cxxstd settings, as I pointed out recently.
How many times do you think anyone compiles more than one TU with
different cxxstd settings ? And how is this ever anything but a user error ?
> But that's not the point, is it? The point is, f.ex. that Boost.Test
> can't drop C++03 and use rvalue references and std::function in its
> interface (also something we discussed), because it's Boost Test, which
> other libraries use in their tests. Since we (Boost) officially support
> C++03, we run tests with C++03, and Boost.Test has to support C++03.
I do not see technically why Boost Test can not have rvalue references
and std::function for C++11 users on up while still maintaining an
interface that C++03. But I understand that such implementing such
functionality might be a PITA to do. So I am certainly not against
dropping support for C++03 in Boost Test or even dropping support for
regression testing or CI testing of libraries at the C++03 level.
> If we (Boost) dropped C++03 support, meaning that we no longer support
> `b2 install` to work with a C++03 compiler and we no longer run (our
> own) regression tests under C++03 compilers, Boost.Test, and each and
> every one of its dependencies would now be free to drop C++03 support.
That is fine with me personally. If it ticks off end-users, that you
would not be able to create a shared/static Boost library at the C++03
level, you can answer them <g>.
> In addition, we may start retiring libraries that have a standard
> equivalent, such as f.ex. boost::function. Or we may not - it'd be up to
> us to decide. But we would be able to do it if we wanted to. (And of
> course migrate mpl use to mp11. :-) )
I wonder who wrote mp11 ?
The main problem as always is to put resources where there are needed. I
am not against Boost saying that we are "dropping support for C++03", if
we actually explain to end-users what this entails and it actually
entails something significant so that announcing that Boost is "dropping
support for C++03" is not just a psychological ploy to get end-user to
use C++11 on up with Boost.
If we just wanted to use words to encourage Boost end-users to use more
modern C++ standard levels than C++03 in their code we could write
something like "We encourage Boost users to use C+11 on up standard
compiler levels with their compiler as Boost resources go to libraries
which support those levels and a number of Boost libraries can not be
used at any lower level." That is much different from saying that "Boost
is dropping support for C++03" if we do not explain specifically what
the latter actually means.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk