Re: Dropping C++03 support (again)

From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-05 01:19:04

I am 100% in favor of dropping 03 support, for the reasons Peter
listed.  No need to change the names of things, or bump the major
release number, IMO.

Zach

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 12:50 PM Peter Dimov via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > To that end, I propose the following:
> >
> > Boost release 1.82.0 is announced as the last one with C++03 support. If
> > critical problems are found in it post-release, we will issue 1.82.1, 1.82.2 and
> > so on, as appropriate (as C++03 users will not be able to just upgrade to 1.83.)
> >
> > Boost release 1.83.0 is announced to require C++11 at minimum. This means
> > compilers that have all the
> > C++11 standard headers, and support all the C++11
> > syntactic constructs and keywords without issuing errors. (E.g. VS2013
> > doesn't qualify because it doesn't support the `constexpr` or `noexcept`
> > keywords.)
>
> Since people have come up with various creative ways to break all existing code
> using Boost, and I've been asked off-list "but don't you want to break things", I
> want to clarify that those are completely outside the scope of my proposal. It is
> exactly as outlined above, no more and no less. I do not propose "Boost 2.0",
> replacing the includes with boost2/foo.hpp, replacing the library names with
> libboost2_foo, bumping the version to 2.0, dropping libraries from Boost, and
> anything like.
>
> As long as a C++11 compiler is used, code that compiles and works with 1.82
> should continue to compile and work with 1.83, without changes.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost