Re: Tagging the minimum C++ standard level for Boost libs

From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-16 08:32:26

On 12/16/2020 2:51 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
> Am 15.12.20 um 18:12 schrieb Edward Diener via Boost:
>> Obviously we can also add "cxxstd": "03" for the many Boost libraries 
>> which can still be used at the C++98/C++03 compilation level also, 
>> even though I would argue that not having a "cxxstd" json field should 
>> mean C++98/C++03 by default.
> 
> I would not treat a missing cxxstd as "C++03" because that makes the 
> proposal mostly useless: Your goal was to tell end users whether they 
> can use the library given their std level. Now you treat libraries with 
> missing information as "compatible with everything" so end users will 
> become confused and annoyed and will ultimately not use this. I'd hence 
> make it explicit and never assume.

All I meant here is that no 'cxxstd' field for a library means C++03 as 
the minimal level. How we decide to display this to the end-user can be 
discussed and I will go along with whatever others think is best. 
Obviously we can display the library information by specifying C++03 as 
the minimal level, or adversely we can display nothing for that given 
library as a C++ minimal standard level, including even the mention of a 
"Minimum C++ standard compilation level', and let the user assume that 
since nothing is displayed the library is usable with any C++ standard 
level.

> 
> BTW: This will ultimately end up at (e.g.) 
> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_75_0/, won't it? Or where would that be 
> displayed?

The idea is that upcoming release docs would incorporate the 
information, but I am not adverse showing this for 1.75 if people want that.

> 
> If so the field "Standard" should be clarified. I'm not sure what it 
> means here and it often is empty (which I'd simply remove)

I agree, and some better, and longer phrase than just 'standard' should 
probably be chosen. I do believe the phrase was meant to specify the C++ 
standard release in which the library was accepted as a C++ standard 
library, but I have no idea what meta information, with what sort of 
value, was supposed to supply this information.