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

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. September 2020 um 09:53 Uhr Von: "Hans Dembinski via Boost"

...

On 23. Sep 2020, at 08:54, Spencer Collyer via Boost wrote:

Maybe use 'enhanced' (or 'enhanced_by') rather than 'required'. Or 'added_value'?

+1 for 'enhanced'. Apart from the minimum, it is useful for lib authors to advertise that they support newer standards as well.

Please keep it simple: The minimum required standard has an immediate value for tooling and is easily understood by the user: "If you want to use the library, you have to enable that mode" / "If my toolchain only supports c++XX, I should not try to build/use this lib". Enhanced on the other hand doesn't tell me anything, except probably that there is at least one macro/precompilation branch that evaluates differently in different modes. Is a library already enhanced in c++14, if more functions become constexpr? Does a lib that is enhanced_by c++17 have to provide overloads for std::string_view? Is a library enhanced by c++XX, if the interface/cababilities remain the same, but the implementation is more efficient/needs fewer boost-internal dependencies? What about libs that use another lib that is enhanced by c++XX, but the lib itself doesn't care directly? Would boost config count as enhanced? Imho, "enhanced_by" is only useful when accompanied by further information detailing, what changes, so I'd keep that information in the readme/documentation. Also - as far as advertising is concerned - it is not like I (as human) am usually looking at meta at all, if I want to know something about a library. I'm looking at the readme and the documentation - of course that last point might be specific to myself and not representative. best Mike

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost