Re: The new Boost 17.0.0

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:
https://pdimov.github.io/articles/phasing_out_cxx03.html

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:
https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_73_0.html

  <quote>
  Math
  *  IMPORTANT: C++03 support is now deprecated and will be removed
from March 2021.
  </quote>

  <quote>
  Multiprecision
  *  IMPORTANT: C++03 support is now deprecated and will be removed
from March 2021.
  </quote>

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.

Glen