Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-25 01:50:44
On 10/24/2018 7:49 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> > If we up the minimum requirement
>> What do you mean by the above ?
> We announce that Boost has a minimum requirement of such and so, and
> will no longer support platforms not meeting it starting with release 1.X.
>> Suppose you made the minimum requirement C++11, what would you expect
>> a library to do to meet that requirement ?
> The library doesn't meet the minimum requirement, the compiler does. The
> library may assume the minimum requirement.
> As an example, if our minimum requirement implies a working
> std::function, Boost.Test may use std::function in its interface and
> implementation, unconditionally and without checking cxxstd or
> BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_FUNCTIONAL or whatever else, and its maintainers can
> in good conscience accept pull requests making use of other C++11
> features whose availability is guaranteed by the minimum requirement.
Haven't we already basically agreed, going forward with Boost, that a
library can use C++11 features and the C++11 Standard Library without
informing end-users in advance that it is going to do so, if previously
it supported C++03 ? If not, that was what I thought the previous long
discussion about dropping support for C++03 was largely about. I do not
think there is anything more that Boost can do to attempt to promote
C++11 as the minimum standard it supports, at least at the level of each
individual library. As far as Boost Test is concerned, or any other
Boost library, I think it should use C++11 if it desires. If C++03
library depends on a library which has gone from C++03 to C++11 then
that C++03 library is now a C++11 library as long as it maintains that
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk