Re: C++11 on up Boost libraries

From: pbristow_at_[hidden]
Date: 2020-12-31 10:19:08

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
> Sent: 31 December 2020 02:07
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] C++11 on up Boost libraries
> 
> On 12/30/2020 8:47 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:28 PM Edward Diener via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> ...
> >
> > This whole thread reminds me of the old joke, "How many Boost authors
> > does it take to list the minimum C++ version required for a library?"
> 
> I will not say that a Boost library is more complicated than a light bulb, because the ghost of
Thomas
> Alva Edison as well as electrical engineers would object, but light bulb sockets have largely been
> standardized, at leats here in the US, whereas C++'s standardization is a moving target.

It's far worse than that - the toolchain implementations are a movable feast too!

But the TL;DR answer to your question is "assume C++11", 

but I believe that we should also encourage would-be users to consult the regression matrix

https://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/summary.html

for more detailed info on what is known to work with some confidence based on tests, 

and finally try it and see, rather than making big decisions and investments after assuming the
cxxstd info is definitive.

Paul

PS We are steering a difficult course between trying to encourage users to use the most recent
(hopefully best) compilers and Cxxstd while avoiding putting off (and losing) those who are happily
using ancient compilers, and can probably continue to do so.