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

Subject: Re: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-30 20:05:37

On 8/30/2018 2:25 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2018, Mike Dev via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Glen Fernandes
>> via Boost
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 11:55 PM
>>>
>>> On 8/30/2018 8:02 AM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Looks generally good. A few things:
>>>
>>>> [Add some fluff here?]
>>> 1. No fluff.
>>
>> Well, I imagined that there would be some "Hello everyone, we hereby
>> announce ..."
>> but that should probably be added by whomever or whatever entity actually
>> does
>> the announcement
>>>
>>>> - Problems that only manifest on not supported compilers [1] or in
>> c++03
>>>>    mode will not block a release, and will probably not be fixed at all.
>>>
>>> 2. Just "will not block a release". No "probably not be" part. This
>>> announcement does not need to speculate on what individual library
>>> maintainers will do. Let users contact the library maintainers if they
>>> want that support.
>>
>> agreed
>>
>>>
>>>> As always, individual library maintainers are of course free to
>> continue
>>>> their support of older language versions and compilers and we
>> generally don't
>>>> expect the introduction of a lot of new c++11 code without a clear
>> benefit.
>>>
>>> 3. This should also just end at the "free to continue their support of
>>> older language versions and compilers" part. No "and we generally
>>> don't" part. If a library maintainer wants to introduce new C++11 and
>>> break compatibility, the users should not be given avenue for
>>> complaint if they feel it is "without clear benefit".
>>
>> agreed, I was just sticking to the points mentioned by James E. King,
>> but not all of that needs to be in the announcement
>>
>>>
>>>> However, many libraries may become incompatible with c++03 just by
>> virtue of
>>>> depending on another library that previously supported 03 but now
>> starts to
>>>> use c++11 features.
>>>
>>> 4. Drop this part entirely. If a library stops working in C++03 mode,
>>> it stops working. Users can contact the library maintainer and ask for
>>> them to support C++03. If Boost.X fails in C++03 mode because it
>>> depends on Boost.Y, the users don't need to care that the reason it
>>> fails is because of Boost.Y, their point of contact is Boost.X's
>>> library maintainer.
>>
>> I somehow felt this is important, but I don't remember why just now.
>>
>>>
>>>> Obviously, this change will only effect libraries that have supported
>> c++03
>>>> before. Libraries that already supported compilers and/or newer
>> language
>>>> versions are unaffected.
>>>
>>> 5. This seems obvious and not worth mentioning, but up to you.
>>
>> I also wasn't sure about that. I didn't want to give the impression
>> that from now on every boost library would start to support c++11
>>
>>>
>>>> If you want to continue to use boost in a project that has to stay
>> compatible with
>>>> c++03, recommendation is to stick to the last release before the switch
>>>> (probably 1.72).
>>>
>>> 6. Drop this part too. Users who want to be on latest Boost because
>>> they use Boost.X C++11+ library and Boost.Y C++03-compatible library
>>> should feel equally encouraged to do.
>>
>> Fine with me
>>
>>>
>>>> [add some more fluff?]
>>>
>>> 7. Same as #1. No fluff.
>>
>> OK
>>
>> Again, please someone else take the lead on the actual writing, as I won't
>> be able to work on this during the next week
>> or so (no access to a computer) a.
> 
> 
> *Nod.* I can do it. I volunteer Edward to help me.

I will be glad to help. But who is promising that once we write 
something up we will get any sort of consensus and that if we do it will 
actually be put on the website where it is easy to see ? In other words 
I do not think it will be that hard to complete a statement between us 
but if there is going to be no further action we will be wasting our time.

> 
> Glen