Re: The new Boost 17.0.0

From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-11-27 16:54:41

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 11:09 AM Glen Fernandes wrote:
> 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

Note that despite what I feel about the "minimum' required C++
version, I'm responsible for fixing C++20 compatibility in at least
the following libraries:
* Bimap
* Format
* Signals2
* Rational
* Polygon
* uBLAS (though this wasn't merged for the 1.75 release yet)

So I'm all for supporting C++20, just not requiring C++20. :)

Glen