on Mon Aug 05 2013, Stephen Kelly
On 08/05/2013 04:30 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
"It is not unreasonable to think" doesn't demonstrate anything, so it's also (ahem) not unreasonable to want to see more evidence. :-)
I've looked at boost::any in an updated boost repo (mine was an obsolete boost-zero repo which has not been updated in a long time). The uses of other features of type_traits has grown there, so more modularization work would be needed.
Not surprising.
Actually I thought that upgrading the compiler requirement would be such a no-brainer as to require no further evidence of its usefulness than I already presented. If that's not the case, then *shrug*.
Well, I can see it's useful in principle, but it's quite possible that once you get past the very oldest compilers, the wins from further narrowing compiler support drop sharply.
I think what is necessary is for the boost community to pick increased compiler requirements for the purpose of proceeding with modularization,
Why is that necessary? Aren't individual library authors fully capable of making the decision to drop support for an old compiler because it's pulling in a dependency they don't really want?
If that's how boost works, then you're telling me :).
That's how Boost works. One of the ideas of the Git separation (and hopefully eventual Ryppl) transition is to give maintainers more of a sense of control over these things. I'm sure the commitment to quality is there, but I think there's probably a lot of resignation over the seemingly-intractable morasse. -- Dave Abrahams