Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-16 08:52:17

>> 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.
But that would be wrong, wouldn't it? A C++11 library which hasn't
merged the PR adding the cxxstd field (there are quite some inactive
ones) would be shown/treated as "C++03 is the minimum required", which
is not correct.
So I'd rather not display anything if the information is missing to show
exactly that: No information is available. Authors who care will then
add this information as appropriate.
>> BTW: This will ultimately end up at (e.g.)
>>, 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.
Sorry, didn't mean 1.75 specifically, only this page. So one can rather
watch I guess

BTW: That pages show "Revised $Date$" at the bottom

And the new field needs to be added at

>> 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.

I would just remove it. On the above docu page it says:

    std: A list of the standardization status of the library. Currently
    just supports 'tr1' for included in TR1 and 'proposal' for a current
    proposal. Will add more in the future..

At the current state "more" wasn't added and all information is pretty
much outdated

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