Re: Dropping C++03 support (again)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-17 18:29:02

Jeff Garland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:01 AM Peter Dimov via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 	Andrey Semashev wrote:
> 	> On 2/17/23 19:17, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:
> 	> >
> 	> >> rush to deliver spaceship broke some code
> 	> >
> 	> > So what? Progress can't be made without *some* mistakes -- as you
> 	> > should know, there are a lot of complicated cases.  The fixes for that
> 	> > breakage weren't difficult.
> 	>
> 	> I wouldn't say so. We still haven't fixed Boost.Operators (not for the
> lack of
> 	> trying), which still remains officially broken in C++20.
> 	>
> 	> https://github.com/boostorg/utility/issues/65
> 	>
> 	> In fact, this very issue is the reason I'm hesitant upgrading my projects
> to
> 	> C++20 and beyond.
> 
> 	Seconded.
> 
> 	https://github.com/boostorg/function/issues/45
> 
> 	C++23 makes it somewhat better, but doesn't fix everything.
> 
> 
> 
> hmm well it either fixes it or it doesn't -- not sure, but this was applied as a DR
> to C++20 so we shouldn't have to wait for 23.
> 
> 
> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1127

As I said, it fixes some cases, but not others.

This whole idea of x == y necessarily being equivalent to y == x in the
heterogeneous case (in C++ code) is misguided, but the rewritten candidate
being preferred to the non-rewritten one when better match is just...

You'd think the committee wouldn't be so eager to deliberately break code.

"This code was already broken!"

Yeah, right. Very nice of you to decide that for me.