On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Stephen Kelly
Niall Douglas wrote:
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.
It looks like the document about the future of Boost is making it a policy that no compiler support should be dropped ever and that ancients are supported by policy.
To try to reduce the chance of a reader jumping to that conclusion, I've changed the case study introduction from: This case study from Jeff Garland illustrates why Boost continues to support older compilers and standard libraries. to: This case study from Jeff Garland illustrates why many Boost libraries leave old compiler and standard library workarounds in place as long as they don't impede library evolution: Thanks, --Beman