On Monday 17 June 2013 10:39:10 Michael Marcin wrote:
On 6/17/2013 10:29 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
I know, C++11 has many fancy features and all, and I'm all for its adoption too. But Boost also serves practical purpose, and if people can't use your library then that just limits its usefulness. So unless you trying to make some academic work here, the library should be more portable.
Seems an undue constraint on a new library to me.
Adding a new C++11 library harms no one that doesn't have have a C++11 compiler.
If you need a C++03 version of a C++11 only library and you feel it is not an unreasonable amount of work to provide you could just fork the library into your own github and do the backporting.
I wasn't suggesting making the library strictly C++03-compatible. My main point was that the library has to be compatible with _todays_ and even better - _yesterdays_ compilers to be actually useful. My choice of "reasonable" time frame is 3-5 years, as I mentioned. That includes VS 2008 and VS 2010, which already had some C++11 features, including rvalue references. Making VS 2013 absolute minimum is a no-go, IMHO.