On 8/27/2018 1:47 AM, degski via Boost wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 at 01:21, Edward Diener via Boost
wrote: You are correct in that I do not understand why making an announcement that Boost is "dropping support for C++03" is going to make any difference to anybody, when nothing further changes as far as Boost is concerned and in fact some Boost libraries continue to support C++03 simply because they do not require C++11 on up features.
I purposely did not post in this thread, because I already had the discussion on this list, with the same result.
I have come to a more balanced view since then. The way I see it, is that those advocating "drop C++03" have mostly one thing in mind. C++11 is a major departure from C++03, because of move semantics (the real moving, i.e. not copying stuff). I think Boost could adopt a maybe more subtle view of imposing that C++11 moves should be implemented over the board (where that makes sense of course), as a rule.
"C++11 moves should be implemented over the board". Please explain what you mean by that ?
This does not imply "drop C++03", but does mean that peops that did move to C++11 are guaranteed to get what they want when using Boost compiled with C++11 and up. I would be happy with that. IMO, the alround support of C++11 moves is a more interesting question/challenge than moving to CMake.
degski