On Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:20 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
Hello, is it permitted to transform an existing boost library into a C++11-only library? best, Oliver
There has been some discussion on a C++11-only Boost, and Niall has BindLib-soon-to-be-called-something-else-lib, which may reify some of the specifics surrounding that. In my personal opinion, I would say go for it (I've upgraded to C++14 on multiple compilers and platforms); anybody that cannot upgrade to a C++11 compiler should either fight harder, do it anyway and then ask for forgiveness, or change jobs (in that order). However, some authors/maintainers of various libraries are stuck with older compilers for their customers and there's pretty much no way you can convince them to help in a C++11-only effort, or to help maintain a C++11-only branch. Also, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ultimately, if it's your library and you feel it impractical to support pre C++11 in your library, that's your choice, but you risk upsetting customers if you break existing code. So... onto the discussions of inline namespaces, suitable notice and backporting bugfixes. To pick a specific example (and not to pick on anybody or any library in particular, but just because it's in my mind), I would say it's easier and more convenient to move to say, Thread/v4 than it is to consistently supply myriad defines across multiple build systems. I would say go for a V(x+1) library and enjoy your coding life. Be responsible where bugfixes are appropriate, but don't let it prevent you from making progress*. *Really; please don't let it prevent you from making progress. Ben