Re: [boost] Proposal for adding C++ level to the meta/libraries.json

Am 22.09.20 um 10:42 schrieb Paul A Bristow via Boost:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Boost On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost Sent: 21 September 2020 18:37 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Edward Diener Subject: [boost] Proposal for adding C++ level to the meta/libraries.json

Since we are reviewing Vinnie Falco's JSON library I thought that this would be a good time to present a proposal to add information to each Boost library's meta/libraries.json file regarding the level of C++ standard compliance for that library. This could then be added to each library's visual documentation so that end-users would instantly know the C++ standard level they would need to use in order to use a Boost library.

My proposal is to add 3 fields whose data would be the same as the cxxstd allowed values from Boost Build, using the first value of each choice ( currently 03, 11, 14, 17, 20 ).

standard = minimum C++ level for the library extended = same functionality in the library as the minimum C++ level but with extended use given higher C++ levels required = new functionality in the library above the minimum C++ level which requires given higher C++ levels

The 'standard' field would be a single value, while the 'extended' or 'required' fields could be more than one comma separated value. If you don't like the names for 'standard', 'extended', or 'required' you can bikeshed the name, although I think the 'standard' name is pretty well apparent.

The idea is to provide this information in the meta/libraries.json field for each library, so that the end- user of the library can immediately know the usability of the library with appropriate C++ standard levels of compilation.

I realize that the line between the 'extended' and 'required' entries, as I have described them, could be blurred. The 'standard' field remains the most important. I have long felt that the end-user should not have to do any investigation, in code or in documentation, just to determine if a library is usable for his C++ standard level of compilation. I've been muttering about this tricky issue for some time.

For a big and old and still growing library like Boost.Math, the problem is even more difficult.

For many math functions and distributions, C++03 (with C++11 numeric_limits) is fine, but as one starts to use newer items, then requirement shift up to needing C++20.

We have recently decided to require a minimum C++11, but that still means that users may find that some components need more.

TBH I didn't understand the meaning of "extended" and "required" as I failed to parse the sentence. Might be my English though. How about: - minimum required C++ standard version to use this library - maximum C++ standard version which adds new features (i.e. for Math that would be C++20, although for most libs it would be the same as above) - opt.: Superseded by which C++ standard version (this came up in the "deprecate C++03" discussions): When a library has been fully (or mostly) absorbed by a standard that might be valuable to tell) I think the first is unquestionable and easiest. The latter 2 are optional and could be harder to specify and keep up to date. But at least there is a clear distinction what is what