Subject: Re: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-28 20:13:56
On 8/28/2018 1:50 PM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:
>> -----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
>> 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.
Other than not removing useful Boost libraries which support c++03 as
well as all subsequent C++ standard levels, and not telling people that
they can not use such libraries in c++03 mode if they actually want to
do so, I am perfectly willing to let others, including yourself, decide
the best way in which support for c++03 in Boost is reduced. My argument
has always been that putting a generalized statement on the website,
without explaining what it actually entails as far as using Boost
libraries is concerned, is going to lead to confusion and puzzlement
from end-users and endless questions. What can it possibly cost to
actually explain of what "Boost dropping support for c++03" actually
consists, when it is finally decided what Boost is going to do in this
area ? If it is a matter of correct grammar or exposition in the
explanation, I will gladly volunteer to write it if no one else wants to
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk