On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 6:41 PM Edward Diener wrote:
On 11/29/2020 6:10 PM, Mike via Boost wrote:
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. November 2020 um 22:43 Uhr Von: "Edward Diener via Boost"
On 11/29/2020 10:47 AM, Mike via Boost wrote:
Gesendet: Samstag, 28. November 2020 um 18:32 Uhr Von: "Edward Diener via Boost"
On 11/28/2020 11:47 AM, Mike via Boost wrote:
- Obviously a c++03 lib can't use std::chrono::duration or std::string_view in its interface. The former can sometimes be added as additional overload if available, however, adding the latter almost certainly leads to ambiguous overload resolution situations. So instead I have to convert the c++11/17/20 types into the appropriate boost types.
I think this is valid. But you are certainly allowed to create a PR for a Boost library which changes its use of a Boost type to its C++ standard library equivalent, with the proviso that the Boost library's base C++ level be C++11 and not C++03. The latter should not be an issue since Boost has already stated that Boost officially supports C++11 on up.
[...] Could you point me to this statement?
What statement ?
Whatever you meant when you wrote:
since Boost has already stated that Boost officially supports C++11 on up.
I recall something Peter Dimov wrote about Boost no longer guaranteeing support of code compiled at the C++03 level, but do not remember where it is on the website.
It's not an official statement and it's not on the Boost website. It was a proposal, and hosted on Peter's github: https://pdimov.github.io/articles/phasing_out_cxx03.html Glen