Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries

On 2/18/2018 3:44 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

On 2/18/18 2:12 AM, Olaf van der Spek via Boost wrote:

...

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

...

What does "drop support" mean?

a) libraries should fail to compile with C++03?  Any library which does so should be considered "broken" in some sense?

b) libraries should/must be implemented in C++11(+?)?  Any library which isn't should/would be considered "broken"

c) libraries should/must be compilable with C++11(+?)? Any libraries which don't would be considered broken.

None of the above, but you already knew that, didn't you?

No.  It's a serious question.  The phrase "drop support" is confusing to me in the context of Boost.

Exactly ! There has been lots of noise about "dropping c++03" support but very little substance which explains what it means. As you and others have mentioned, as long as a library, written for whatever standard(s) it has specified in its doc, builds and works properly with the latest C++ standards, why should anyone want to legislate against it as far as what C++ features it uses are does not. One can encourage the use of later C++ constructs and C++ compilation modes that may make it easier to create an effective library, but it is wrong to force on a library developer particular constructs for which he has no use. I understand that some programmers may want library interfaces to support C++11 versions of std libraries rather than the equivalent Boost versions of those same libraries, because people compiling in C++11 mode or above may be otherwise using the std versions of those libraries in their code. I wrote CXXD as an attempt to solve that problem. But that choice is up to the library developer and can't be legislated as a demand.

Robert Ramey.