Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-16 14:38:19

On 12/16/2020 3:52 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
>>> 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.

I had decided to wait on programming anything on the appropriate web
page(s) until all libraries to which I have submitted the PR merged it.
This does not have to be a rush job and it will take me some time to
figure out the PHP code on the web pages so I can alter them to use the
JSON cxxstd value appropriately.

> 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

OK, that seems like the right page.

> BTW: That pages show "Revised $Date$" at the bottom
> And the new field needs to be added at

Thanks for pointing that out.

>>> 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

I agree with you.

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