Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-24 23:37:13
On 10/24/2018 6:53 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> 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.
>> >Â Â Â Â b2 toolset=clang install
>> > and obtains a prebuilt Boost.
>> > Then the user types f.ex.
>> >Â Â Â Â 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
What do you mean by the above ? Suppose you made the minimum requirement
C++11, what would you expect a library to do to meet that requirement ?
I think this is the gist of all the disagreements about what cxxstd
Boost should support as a minimum.
> 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 cxxstd level.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk