Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-24 22:53:07
Edward Diener wrote:
> > What I was saying is this: the user, or someone acting on his behalf
> > such as a package maintainer, types f.ex.
> > b2 toolset=clang install
> > and obtains a prebuilt Boost.
> > Then the user types f.ex.
> > clang++ -std=c++17 myapp.cpp -lboost_pumpkin
> > and expects it to work. If boost_pumpkin autodetects C++11/C++14/C++17
> > and changes its API to match, it doesn't work.
> Is not this a user problem, irrelevant of cxxstd level ?
It is a user problem, but note that it doesn't happen if libraries don't
change their API in response to the cxxstd level. That is, libraries that
assume C++03 and use the Boost components instead of their standard
equivalents don't suffer from this, it all works.
If we up the minimum requirement these libraries could just unconditionally
transition to the std components wholesale (again without adapting to
cxxstd) and it will still work (provided that we either build with an
intelligent post-03 default, or quit with an error when C++03 is assumed by
omission as above, thereby forcing the user to choose a preferred post-03
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk