On 14 June 2013 19:20, Lars Viklund wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:04:36PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14 June 2013 18:53, Lars Viklund wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 04:21:38PM +0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
The existing code base being prepared for entry into Boost is pure C++11, or at least as much C++11 as is provided by the Nov 2012 CTP experimental MSVC compiler and therefore easily supported by GCC 4.6 and clang 3.x.
I hope that you do realize that the Nov12 CTP does not come with a go-live license, nor is recommended for any human consumption.
It seems quite odd to me to spend significant GSoC resources on making a library that targets only two compilers,
You make it sound like C++11 is going to disappear or be a temporary fad. Other compilers will catch up at some point.
and assumedly a rather narrow set of OSes.
Is there any compiler that targets more OSes than GCC?
Even if GCC can target an OS, it's not always as suitable as the native compiler on the OS, with the native runtime. There are also several alternative C++03 compilers that serve special purposes. Should projects needing their other features (excellent auto-vectorisation, etc.) have to completely drop Boost due to an urge to constantly target the bleeding edge.
Those projects cannot possibly be using AFIO, since it isn't in Boost yet, so why would they have to "completely drop Boost" if a library they don't use is C++11-only? Stop being melodramatic.
I used to see Boost as an empowering library, enhancing and evening out the playing field among the compilers out there.
I don't see it as evening out differences at all. Even the name suggests it's meant to offer *more* than the standard library, not poorer functionality due to being stuck in the last decade.