From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-26 19:38:37
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 8:38 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 15:53, Robert Ramey via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 10/26/20 2:37 AM, Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
> > >
> > > We're discussing  to start switching GIL to C++17
> > > in the near future and, following Peter Dimov's policy
> > > on phasing out C++XY support , we'd like to:
> > >
> > > 1. Declare C++11 support deprecated in 1.75 (December 2020)
> > > 2. Drop C++11 support in 1.77 (?) (August 2021)
> > >
> > > Could anyone help us validate and confirm that
> > > it's a good plan or are we overlooking any policies
> > > from Boost's release perspective?
> > >
> > >  https://lists.boost.org/boost-gil/2020/10/0465.php
> > >  https://pdimov.github.io/articles/phasing_out_cxx03.html
> > Just out of curiosity, what new features and/or benefits (if any) will
> > moving to conformance with C++17 add?
> e.g. make the library sexier for contributors who actually
> expressed interest in developing features for the library
> and who wish to use `-std=c++17` at least
> when they develop pull requests for the library.
Really, the stated reason for dropping support for C++11 is that it will
make the library "sexier"?
I understand that this would enable GIL to be compiled as a standalone
library, and that's a good thing, but it would be better to provide that
functionality and not break what currently works. Or at least take a stab
at it and see how bad it is to support both. After all, Boost provides
excellent support for workarounds and compiler compatibility.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk