Re: Dropping C++03 support (again)

From: Gavin Lambert (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-07 23:05:38

On 8/02/2023 01:06, Kostas Savvidis wrote:
> I would add to the reasons the complete absense of any messages of protest on this list from projects that use boost with a 03-only compiler.
> That is, assuming,
>    A) such projects exist and,
>    B) they do upgrade to new boost versions instead of being stuck on some version which came out at a time when their project originated.

FWIW, as I said the last five times this topic came up, while I do 
indeed have some projects stuck on C++03 (and even older!) compilers, 
they're also permanently pegged to older Boost versions, and I don't 
forsee any reason to upgrade them in the future.  I would imagine most 
others in a similar situation have similar views, though I might be wrong.

Anyone required to use an old compiler is probably targeting an entire 
old ecosystem, that would naturally have old versions of all 
dependencies, including Boost.  The rest probably could upgrade compiler 
flags if given a sufficient nudge.

So I fully support existing libraries dropping C++03, especially if that 
might make them more likely to use C++11 or higher features where 
currently they might be avoiding them.  All my "current" projects target 
C++17 at present.

I'm less inclined towards dropping libraries entirely (though not 
strongly opposed -- if no willing maintainer comes forward after a 
specific library is put into the crosshairs, perhaps it deserves to die) 
or "Boost 2.0", but then that wasn't Peter's proposal anyway.