From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-08 02:23:24
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:09 PM Robert Ramey wrote:
> On 11/7/19 2:27 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> > What is being proposed is a sanctioned mechanism for library maintainers
> > to drop C++03 in an orderly manner. Any library maintainer who wishes to
> > maintain C++03 support is free to do so.
> I don't see any difference between this and the current policy. As far
> as I know no library developer has ever been required to provide support
> for other than the current standard. Of course if I'm wrong about this,
> then feel free to make this policy explicit. I don't see it changing
It's different in this way: Some Boost authors and contributors do
feel constrained even if the official policy is to support only the
latest/current standard from breaking either an existing Boost library
that depends on that library that supports C++03, or breaking some
software that uses that Boost library which must be compiled in C++03.
For example, during a Boost beta release, reports might come in from
users saying that X library no longer works for them because they need
C++03 support. Or after a release, a Linux distribution package set
fails to build, because they compile those programs in C++03 mode, and
the Boost library stops compiling in C++03 mode.
But while that might have been the case three - maybe even two - years
ago, it isn't likely to be the case now. e.g. More compilers default
standard mode is C++14 now, not C++03. i.e. Those of us who were
worried about that outcome are less worried about it now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk