From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-25 19:32:59
On 5/25/2020 12:38 PM, Joaquin M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz via Boost wrote:
> El 25/05/2020 a las 14:06, Andrey Semashev via Boost escribiÃ³:
>> And if Boost.FooBar wants to support C++03 for some reason then you
>> would mark it Boost03 only. This is bad PR for no reason.
> A library can support C++03 and yet be in epochs 11 and later.
>> Maintaining backward compatibility and using Boost.MPL because of that
>> is another, and it must be as viable option as others.
> It's a viable option, but then the lib won't get into Boost11, unless
> Boost.MPL inclusion
> is conditional on BOOST_ASSUME_CXX. Not being in epoch Boost11 does not
> mean the lib
> can't be actively maintained and work in C++11 and later (which is
> mostly the case for
> C++03-compatible code).
I think you need to explain in your document that the criteria for a
library to be in an Epoch level of c++11 on up is that the library
depends on a C++ standard library rather than its Boost equivalent in
any cases where this dependency might exist, as well as the fact that
the library depends on other Boost libraries, in any cases where this
dependency might exist, which themselves follow the C++ standard versus
Boost library criteria. I personally would support such an idea for
Epocjs. But I would want the decision based on the Epoch to which a
library may belong to be solely based on this objective criteria, and
not on any subjective idea of what constitutes a C++nn library or not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk