On 11/28/2020 4:59 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Rainer Deyke wrote:
Rainer Deyke wrote:
From a user perspective, forking is an improvement over the status quo: >> it means that Boost can guarantee that the 1.x line can stop dropping >> support for old C++ standards, making it relatively safe to upgrade >> within the 1.x line.
This is only an improvement in the imaginary world where we have enough > resources to maintain two forks. In reality, we have trouble
On 28.11.20 19:07, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote: maintaining > one.
Yes, that's why I wrote "from a user perspective". I'm not saying that this a practicable solution. I'm just saying that it would be nice if it were.
Nice for the end user, perhaps, but intermediate libraries are now forced to choose between using boost or boost2, or maintaining two versions.
My alternative idea of "nice to have" is a single Boost library that can use either boost or std components in its interface. That's not always possible to obtain though.
ROFL. "How would you link all the variations of that library if the library were not a header-only library. You would have to have a different name for each combination and the number of combinations would proliferate to an unusable number. What a pipe dream you have !" <g>