27 Nov
2020
27 Nov
'20
2:32 p.m.
Dominique Devienne via Boost said: (by the date of Fri, 27 Nov 2020 15:04:50 +0100)
Hi. I like that idea. I'm on C++17 and Boost 1.74, likely for a long time*, so a C++17 Boost fork would work better for me, but C++20's modules and concepts do seem like a stronger base for a Boost 2.0 and would yield bigger bang for the buck, longer term.
I completely agree. Let the boost versions 1.74, 1.75, 1.76 etc remain C++Old compliant, and can be maintained as long as one wishes to maintain it. And start the 2.00, 2.01, 2.02 boost releases versioning which takes a new breath by fully utilizing the new C++20 features. No workarounds broken compilers is also a good idea. -- # Janek Kozicki http://janek.kozicki.pl/