From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-01-11 14:39:31
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:12 AM Alexander Grund via Boost
> >> And my remark was that (at least for me) "C++ standard minimum level"
> >> is to long and doesn't fully display on the website leading to "C++
> >> standard minimum lev11" to be shown instead of "C++ standard minimum
> >> level : 11"
> > I am good with changing that. Maybe just "C++ standard minimum". I am
> > worried that if we just specify "C++ standard" or "C++ level" there
> > will be programmers who think that if they see, let's say, "11" that
> > they will not be able to use that library unless they are compiling
> > with exactly C++11. I know that may sound ridiculous, but the less
> > confusion the better.
> "Minimum C++ standard"?
I see that we're explicit about "C++" just in case people interpret it
to mean the standards of the other programming languages we support.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk