From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-07 22:18:28
On 2019-11-07 4:42 p.m., Rob Stewart via Boost wrote:
> On November 7, 2019 3:10:12 PM EST, Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> We need a policy on phasing out C++03 support in Boost.
>> C++03 support is holding us back. It impedes development, increases
>> maintenance costs, increases dependencies, and increases compilation
I thought library authors already were at liberty to require C++11 for
their project. Are you suggesting that at this point in time all Boost
libraries are supposed to be compatible with C++03 ?
> Consider the alternate path of bumping the major version. There are a lot of libraries that will have to drop 03 simultaneously, so that would be signified clearly by a move to Boost v2.
> There may be some tooling that assumes v1, but really, isn't it time to use the major version number?
I never understood our versioning (numbering) scheme. Given that we
don't have any metric to measure the degree of (in-)compatibility
between two distinct Boost releases, I always thought a simple
monotonically increasing number would be the simplest. Let's just get
rid of the "1." as a meaningless prefix, rather than invent some
semantics around an illusion.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk