Re: Boost website changes and .'cxxstd'

From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-01-06 20:02:14

On 1/6/2021 2:41 PM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:34 PM Edward Diener via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/6/2021 2:00 PM, Donovan Dikaio via Boost wrote:
>>> The updates to show "C++ standard minimum level" is just live here:
>>> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/
>>
>> Excellent !
>>
>> Ideally if there is no 'cxxstd' json value, I think the "C++ standard
>> minimum level" should say '03' rather than be left out completely. This
>> will be incorrect for those libraries who have not yet merged the
>> 'development' branch change for 'cxxstd' into 'master' yet. But once
>> these libraries merge the change into their 'master' branch the correct
>> "C++ standard minimum level" would then be shown for all libraries, and
>> all libraries would have a "C++ standard minimum level" displayed, which
>> I think is more consistent with what end-users would want to see.
>>
> 
> Please do not do this. It would subvert the possible intent of libraries
> that do not wish to peg themselves at a particular C++ level. It would also
> likely show incorrrect information for the libraries that could be C++98
> and have not gotten around to adding this field to reflect it as such.

If an end-user does not see a "C++ standard minimum level" for a library 
in the documentation what should he/she assume ? I would like to argue 
that it would be beneficial for end-users to see the C++ standard 
minimum level for all libraries, even for those which work at the 
C++98/03 level on up. I do not understand the purpose of a library which 
does not wish to peg itself at a particular minimum C++ level. A library 
could have 25 pieces of functionality, 5 of which work at the C++03 
level, 5 of which work at the C++11 level, 5 of which work at the C++14 
level, 5 of which work at the C++17 level, and 5 of which work at the 
C++20 level, but how likely is that and what good does it do to 
represent such a library as not having any C++ standard minimum level ? 
Specifying a C++ standard minimum level does not mean that there is not 
functionality in a library which might require a higher C++ standard 
level in order to work properly. We are just trying to give end-users an 
idea of the minimum C++ standard level needed to work with the majority 
of functionality in a Boost library. In particular specifying a C++ 
standard minimum level of '03' does not mean that there might be some 
functionality in the library which requires C++11 ( or higher ).