Boost logo

Boost :

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.


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