Boost logo

Boost :

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
> anything.

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at