Subject: Re: [boost] c++03 library survey
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-29 18:22:35
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Michael Caisse via Boost
> On 8/29/18 09:40, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 12:23 AM
>>> Any new library proposed for Boost can be C++17+ (i.e. require C++17 or higher).
>> Sure, I'm aware of all that, but there are very few instances of a library v2.
>> If it doesn't bring significantly new functionality on the table (just modernized
>> internals and some additions) - would it really be accepted?
> It would not be denied and in the past there has been direct
> encouragement to some authors to do just this. While there might not be
> significant functionality additions there are often interface improvements.
Just to clarify, such a v2 library should pass the regular review
process as any other new library. Part of the review involves
determining the usefulness of the library, which might be mode
difficult if the v2 library does not offer much to its users compared
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk