Re: The new Boost 17.0.0

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.

ROFL.

"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 !"

<g>