Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support
From: Mike Dev (mike.dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-28 17:50:55

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:18 PM
> It astounds me that you can not understand that the statement "Boost
> dropping c++03 support" is a generality that can mean whatever you think
> it means, and that you keep pushing for such a statement being
> universally understand by everyone with no further explanation needed.

So, if you actually agree with the suggestion I'm making and all you want
is to put a more detailed explanation on the boost website than what I
sketched in my previous posts, I'm sure we can work something out.

> As you can clearly read by other respondents in this thread, and not
> just me, you are dead wrong in your assumption.

I think except from you, there was exactly one other post (from Gavin)
that said "dropping c++03 support" maybe unclear to the user. That is
certainly not enough evidence that I am dead wrong. But as I said (just
now, as well as in my answer to Gavin), we can certainly talk about what
exactly should be written once you decided if you want to actually support
the suggestion.

> When some poor end-user
> reads "Boost dropping c++03 support" and finds he is still able to
> compile some Boost library in C++03 mode and asks why a statement was
> made of "Boost dropping c++03 support", I nominate you as the one to
> explain to him that
> 'the concept of "XXX is not supported" is ubiquitous throughout software
> development'
> and therefore he is a fool to ask such a question.

As I still don't believe this will be a common problem - sure. Put my email
address under whatever text we come up with in the end (I somewhat doubt
though that you want me to speak for the boost community)

> I do not know whether I agree with your suggestion

Deciding that question either way would actually be more useful than our
ping pong of "the description is unclear" / "it is clear".

> BTW I am not against Boost actually doing specific things which promote
> C++11 on up library development or use of C++11 on up for end-users who
> use Boost libraries. But those specific things, whatever is decided,
> need to be explained to end-users and not just a statement that "Boost
> is dropping C++03 support".

So do you have any other suggestion for such a specific ting that would
promote c++11 library development? If not, lets stick to the suggestion
at hand.



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at