Re: [epochs] Internal relevance in post-C++03 Boost of Boost03 components vs. standard equivalents

From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-05 16:24:08

I have a half-drafted post that I just haven't been able to finish, but
will try to post this weekend.  It's a topic that has been much discussed
at c++now and other venues where some of us have been fortunate to gather
in the past. Overall I think you're on the right track...more to come :)

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:26 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz <
joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> El 04/06/2020 a las 16:53, Jeff Garland via Boost escribió:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 2:02 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> For those of you who are following the discussion on epochs, I've just
> >> prepared a report on the relevance of "legacy" components intra-Boost
> for
> >> these Boost libs that require C++11 (or higher) to work:
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.MD
> > The link is broken -- the .MD is not capitalized.
> >
> >
> https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/boost_vs_std_internal.md
>
> Thanks for the heads-up, I changed capitalization and didn't notice that
> broke the link.
> Editorial comments aside, your views on the proposal are most welcome.
>
> Joaquín M López Muñoz
>
>