From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-11-28 21:59:56
Rainer Deyke wrote:
> On 28.11.20 19:07, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> > Rainer Deyke wrote:
> >> From a user perspective, forking is an improvement over the status quo:
> >> it means that Boost can guarantee that the 1.x line can stop dropping
> >> support for old C++ standards, making it relatively safe to upgrade
> >> within the 1.x line.
> > This is only an improvement in the imaginary world where we have enough
> > resources to maintain two forks. In reality, we have trouble maintaining
> > one.
> Yes, that's why I wrote "from a user perspective". I'm not saying that
> this a practicable solution. I'm just saying that it would be nice if it
Nice for the end user, perhaps, but intermediate libraries are now forced to
choose between using boost or boost2, or maintaining two versions.
My alternative idea of "nice to have" is a single Boost library that can use
either boost or std components in its interface. That's not always possible
to obtain though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk