Alexander Grund Wrote:
If the author/maintainer decides that there is enough benefit of raising the required C++ standard then it is his authority though.
Perhaps it's time to rethink that policy. Boost already has a bad reputation for introducing breaking changes and increasing the language requirement beyond the latest compiler default version seems likely to break a lot of code currently using it. It's one thing for a library to add optional new features or functionality that exploits newer language standards, but increasing the baseline version requirement should not be seen through the same lens. As it pertains to soliciting community engagement, I fear reinforcing Boost's reputation for breaking stuff does more harm than any good that would come from simply being on the latest language standard. If a library maintainer is using advocacy as their rationale for doing this, then I think it's fair grounds for a wider discussion about what really *is* in the best interests of Boost. Matt