On 8 Jun 2014 at 11:16, Stephen Kelly wrote:
The Jeff Garland case study tells us that the past problem is already solved using Boost from the present or the past. You don't need to solve that problem again. [snip] And it then illustrates that 'older' means 1996 era compilers.
If you think it should mean something different, I recommend you edit the document, or qualify what 'older' means.
No, I think Jeff's use case does refer to that age of compiler. To my best understanding, he had a large code base based on ancient compilers which he successfully got compiling with C++ 11 mode switched on thanks to Boost. I understand he believes that a more rapid switch of Boost to requiring all C++ 11 would be a great loss to Boost and to those in his situation. I understand he therefore believes such ideas should be opposed. I agree that this is a valuable use case for Boost, and one worth significant monies to large corporate persons as well as to Jeff. The bee in my bonnet is why bug fixing and maintaining C++ 98 compatibility is expected for free from volunteers. I think that if they want C++ 98 support, those users should pay what such support is worth. Meanwhile, the volunteers can get back to pushing the state of the art as it is their family time, not free work donated to wealthy corporate persons who give little to nothing back in return.
Robert Ramey also emailed to make that point in much stronger terms (and on very dubious claims).
Robert, if you want to participate in the discussion I recommend you resolve you problem with posting to this mailing list.
I do wish Robert would email this list instead of privately, unless what he speaks about isn't for public consumption. I already know Robert's position, though don't get me wrong I don't mind being reminded in case my memory is faulty. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/