Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-11-28 22:57:24

On 11/28/2020 4:59 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> 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 were.
> 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.


"How would you link all the variations of that library if the library
were not a header-only library. You would have to have a different name
for each combination and the number of combinations would proliferate to
an unusable number. What a pipe dream you have !"


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