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
> 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
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk