From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-15 10:01:18
On 2020-09-15 05:18, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
> On 9/14/2020 7:38 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
>> Boost.Preprocessor is used quite a lot throughout Boost, not in the
>> least part specifically to support C++03. If it stops being C++03
>> compatible, this will mean most of Boost will stop as well.
> My proposed change does not mean that PP stops supporting C++03. Lots of
> compilers supported variadic macros even when compiling in C++03 mode,
> ie. gcc and clang and vc++ starting with VS2005 being the most
> prominent. The few that actually did not support variadic macros in
> C++03 mode should not be used with future Boost by anybody; they are
> really ancient.
Ok, so it doesn't look as scary as it initially did. Thank you.
> Isn't that what discouraging compiling in C++03 mode is
> all about, so that ancient compilers still supporting c++03 should not
> be used by developers as Boost goes forward.
I actually don't know what the incentive to actively drop C++03 is.
(Disclosure: I write C++17 on a daily basis and I realize C++03 is
limiting in some ways. It is not in others, and some written code can be
made trivially compatible with C++03. Granted, this may not be the case
with Boost.PP, but that code is already written and I suspect requires
little maintenance. Also, in my C++17 code base I'm using some great
C++03 libraries, including Boost, and I see nothing wrong about it.
Please, don't consider this paragraph as an invitation to C++03 vs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk