Re: [boost] A possible date for dropping c++03 support

On 8/28/2018 1:50 PM, Mike Dev via Boost wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Boost On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:18 PM

It astounds me that you can not understand that the statement "Boost dropping c++03 support" is a generality that can mean whatever you think it means, and that you keep pushing for such a statement being universally understand by everyone with no further explanation needed.

So, if you actually agree with the suggestion I'm making and all you want is to put a more detailed explanation on the boost website than what I sketched in my previous posts, I'm sure we can work something out.

...

As you can clearly read by other respondents in this thread, and not just me, you are dead wrong in your assumption.

I think except from you, there was exactly one other post (from Gavin) that said "dropping c++03 support" maybe unclear to the user. That is certainly not enough evidence that I am dead wrong. But as I said (just now, as well as in my answer to Gavin), we can certainly talk about what exactly should be written once you decided if you want to actually support the suggestion.

...

When some poor end-user reads "Boost dropping c++03 support" and finds he is still able to compile some Boost library in C++03 mode and asks why a statement was made of "Boost dropping c++03 support", I nominate you as the one to explain to him that

'the concept of "XXX is not supported" is ubiquitous throughout software development'

and therefore he is a fool to ask such a question.

As I still don't believe this will be a common problem - sure. Put my email address under whatever text we come up with in the end (I somewhat doubt though that you want me to speak for the boost community)

...

I do not know whether I agree with your suggestion

Deciding that question either way would actually be more useful than our ping pong of "the description is unclear" / "it is clear".

...

BTW I am not against Boost actually doing specific things which promote C++11 on up library development or use of C++11 on up for end-users who use Boost libraries. But those specific things, whatever is decided, need to be explained to end-users and not just a statement that "Boost is dropping C++03 support".

So do you have any other suggestion for such a specific ting that would promote c++11 library development? If not, lets stick to the suggestion at hand.

Other than not removing useful Boost libraries which support c++03 as well as all subsequent C++ standard levels, and not telling people that they can not use such libraries in c++03 mode if they actually want to do so, I am perfectly willing to let others, including yourself, decide the best way in which support for c++03 in Boost is reduced. My argument has always been that putting a generalized statement on the website, without explaining what it actually entails as far as using Boost libraries is concerned, is going to lead to confusion and puzzlement from end-users and endless questions. What can it possibly cost to actually explain of what "Boost dropping support for c++03" actually consists, when it is finally decided what Boost is going to do in this area ? If it is a matter of correct grammar or exposition in the explanation, I will gladly volunteer to write it if no one else wants to do so.

Best

Mike