Subject: Re: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support
From: Gavin Lambert (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-28 05:34:22
On 28/08/2018 17:11, Mike Dev wrote:
> throughout this thread you keep saying that you or the user will
> not understand what
> "dropping c++03 support"
> means and I have to say I find that very hard to believe, as the
> concept of "XXX is not supported" is ubiquitous throughout software
> There are of course differences in detail, but
> universally it always means something along the lines of
> "We don't promise that XXX works.
> When you try XXX you are on your own, we take no responsibility
> for what happens if you do and even if it works now, it might
> not work with the next product version (even if it is just a
> minor/path update)."
> Now, on top of that, "XXX is not supported" often means that
> "XXX really just doesn't work", but I can give you dozens
> (probably thousands) of examples where things that are not
> officially supported happen to work e.g.:
There is a significant difference between "we've never tried it on XX
and so we don't support it", and "it used to support XX and now doesn't".
You are trying to cite cases of the former but it is actually the
latter. Without further explicit clarification, that invariably means
"we have decided to start doing things that do not work in XX", ie. that
people can definitely no longer use XX.
Besides, even if in the short term immediately following that
announcement, no library changes are made which actually break
compatibility; it still seems like there is no point in making such an
announcement unless the goal is to indeed break compatibility.
Pretending otherwise is silly.
(I'm not actually opposed to that, for what it's worth. I do have some
code that's stuck pre-C++11 but it's also going to be stuck on an older
Boost release, so it's not an issue.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk