Re: Suggested policy for dropping C++03 support in Boost libraries

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-08 06:39:37

On 2019-11-08 05:23, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
> 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.

This new proposal doesn't change anything. If a developer feels the 
obligation to support C++03 then it is an obligation before users, and 
no document initiated by Boost changes that. If a developer wishes to 
break that obligation and switch to C++11 then nothing prevented him to 
do that before. Sure, there would be some fallout, and there will be 
still after this proposal, so the preferred way to do that is to 
introduce vX+1 of the library.

The only thing that could be changed is to forcefully upgrade all 
libraries to require C++11 and call it Boost 2.x, but I'm not sure if 
that would be useful. It would save each library from vX+1 hassle, at least.