Re: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support

Subject: Re: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-28 18:13:06

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Glen Fernandes
<glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 7:37 AM Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Glen Fernandes wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 7:19 AM Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> >> Part of the problem is that there's no data / visibility on this.
>> >> Who's using what compilers? When do they plan to move forward?
>> >
>> > Why is lack of data or visibility on this a problem for you?
>>
>> How would we know whether somebody is depending on something without data?
>
> Who is the 'we' here?

Discussion participants

> As a Boost user, why is that lack of data a
> problem for you? What will you do different if you had that data?

As just a user it might not make a direct difference, but:

And what costs do others incur for (some of) Boost having to keep
supporting this too?

>> Even if Boost.Config or .Test move to C++11?
>> Would it be a free choice for the maintainers of those libs if they
>> know a lot of libs depend on them?
>
> Yes.
> 1. So many Boost libraries do not even use Boost.Test, and instead use
> Boost.Core.Lightweight_Test for testing, so that one: I have no doubt
> a library maintainer could migrate away it from if they have need to.
> 2. As for Config, it never needs to move away from any C++ version,
> it's just macros for detection that will never impact the user of
> library Boost.P or even how clean or maintainable library Boost.Ps
> code looks

Defining stuff to 'available' unconditionally might be simpler and
faster but true, the impact would be minimal.

-- 
Olaf