Re: Dropping C++03 support (again)

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-05 23:39:57

On 2/5/23 1:25 PM, Christian Mazakas via Boost wrote:
>> So - understood this way I get it.  I still don't see what benefit
>> obtains though.
> 
> I maintain Unordered, which is a C++03 library. Dropping C++03 support
> dramatically simplifies life on my end as it's becoming increasingly more
> difficult to download older and older compilers and toolchains.

Nothing in boost requires that you support C++03.  IIRC the only 
requirement is that you support the most recent version of C++. Due to 
C++ policy on backward compatibility, this usually happens automatically 
so people forget about it.

> While many CI solutions may offer these things, finding them yourself to
> locally replicate CI failures isn't always easy or fun.
> 
> Shifting away from C++03 and setting C++11 as a minimum, where C++11
> is defined as Peter did for us in his opening post, would go a long way
> towards making life easier for future maintainers down the line.
> 
> It eases the burden on our CI and our authors and maintainers and to me,
> that's the benefit we obtain.

You could obtain this benefit tomorrow.  Just set the policy for the 
library you maintain.

> 
> - Christian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>