Rob Stewart 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.
Who was suggesting that?
The author of the document about the future of Boost currently being discussed.
From the document:
... illustrates why Boost continues to support older compilers and standard libraries
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. Robert Ramey also emailed to make that point in much stronger terms (and on very dubious claims). Robert, if you want to participate in the discussion I recommend you resolve you problem with posting to this mailing list. Thanks, Steve.