Boost logo

Boost :

From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-11-27 16:09:49

Dominique Devienne wrote:
> Glen Fernandes wrote
>> I would not be in favor of a Boost distribution that requires anything
>> higher than C++11 for existing libraries. i.e. Not C++17 or even
>> C++14.
> But that's basically Boost as it stands, i.e. Boost 1.x.
> I don't think anyone's proposing to drop that.

That's Boost 1.x with more C++11 and less C++03 - with authors who
choose to drop C++03 support, requiring C++11 at a minimum as per:

This is something which Boost authors are actually acting on. e.g.
Boost.Math and Boost.Multiprecision as of a future Boost 1.77 release:

  * IMPORTANT: C++03 support is now deprecated and will be removed
from March 2021.

  * IMPORTANT: C++03 support is now deprecated and will be removed
from March 2021.

i.e. This is promising because people support this particular proposal
enough to do something, not just for the (potentially unlimited) joy
of discussing it on a list.

> But isn't this just a "teething" issue? I see Ville already replied in fact.

I'm following this discussion over this in C++ committee EWG
reflector. I'm optimistic that people will do the right thing by
users. But I prefer to make decisions based on what I know now, and
what has bitten users today, with -std=c++20 and GCC 10.1 that has
already shipped, not speculation about what will happen.

As I said before, this is just me. C++11 (not higher, not C++17 or
C++20) is just what I support and what I'd be willing to put in work
towards in existing Boost libraries (and even volunteer to do for
those that I do not currently maintain, but would welcome the
contributions). Other authors remain free to drop support for
everything besides C++17 or C++20 if they want.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at