Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries

-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Vinnie Falco via Boost Sent: 18 February 2018 02:34 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Vinnie Falco Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

...

What does "drop support" mean?

What do you mean by "require C++11" ? People keep repeating this but everyone seems to have a different meaning. To me it actually means absolutely nothing. +1 Boost doesn't 'require' any compiler and Boost doesn't 'support' any compiler.

It means I would not invest any energy in C++03 compatibility. If it happens to be compatible, that's fine. But I wouldn't go out of my way to make it so. And where possible I would use C++11 features and idioms since they improve both the interface and the implementation.

That's *exactly* what is happening now! And some people are even writing libraries that require C++17 (Outcome?) and beyond (YAP?). We should only be cautious about accepting libraries requiring C++ standards that are in vaporware mode like C++23 ;-) Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830