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

On 2/19/2018 3:48 AM, Pete Bartlett via Boost wrote:

...

On 18 Feb 2018, at 21:36, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:

...

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.

To speak frankly, only you and Robert are being pedantic on the issue. The rest of the thread’s contributors seem to have a common understanding of what “dropping support” is whether you are talking about new or existing > > libraries.

Care to tell me what that "common understanding" is ? I truly have no idea what people mean by it in relation to Boost libraries that can be built and used in C++03 mode. Do you really mean that if a library can be built and used in C++03 mode it should be dropped from Boost, even if it works fine when built and used in the latest C++ mode supported by compilers ? Inquiring minds actually want to know what is meant by "dropping c++03" support. This is not pedantic issue. It is an attempt to understand what "dropping c++03" support actually means to the people who keep mentioning it.

Unfortunately the meta-problem is that the API compatibility issue is extremely bikeshedable, as this thread shows. There’s no definitive answer as different maintainers will attach different value to a library working with a particular compiler.

To continue the bikeshed analogy, the nuclear power power plant bit is the ABI problem. As someone (Peter?) said quite a few messages ago now, there isn’t a good solution within Boost, so we talk about a different problem.