Re: Boost Libraries and Dropping C++ Language Support

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-23 16:27:26

Niall Douglas wrote:
> I know I've been a strong advocate for a Boost 2.0 which required a minimum
> of C++ 11 in the past

*14

> (and I still am), but I'm finding the above freedom a touch too free.
> 
> Core libraries going to C++ 11 works for me. Core libraries going newer than
> C++ 11 I'm finding not helpful for a major use case for Boost, which is
> "whatever the oldest supported RHEL's compiler is".

Yeah, this "every core library maintainer is sovereign" policy we have on paper
is ridiculous and it doesn't match what we do in practice. But each time I make
some effort to change our de-facto minimum standard level for core libraries
I get this predictable torrent of "it says here in my Boost Policy Compendium
that every core library maintainer is sovereign" replies.

No, core library maintainers can't just go ahead and make their libraries C++20.
They wouldn't be core library maintainers if they did things like that.