Re: [boost] [c++11]

Daniel James wrote:

On 17 June 2013 18:17, Andrey Semashev wrote:

...

On Monday 17 June 2013 10:39:10 Michael Marcin wrote:

...

If you need a C++03 version of a C++11 only library and you feel it is not an unreasonable amount of work to provide you could just fork the library into your own github and do the backporting.

I wasn't suggesting making the library strictly C++03-compatible. My main point was that the library has to be compatible with _todays_ and even better - _yesterdays_ compilers to be actually useful. My choice of "reasonable" time frame is 3-5 years, as I mentioned. That includes VS 2008 and VS 2010, which already had some C++11 features, including rvalue references. Making VS 2013 absolute minimum is a no-go, IMHO.

The portability requirements disagree.

http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Portability

+1 - agree. This has always been the standard and it has worked well. In a practical sense, if one makes new a C++11 only package - no current user is impacted. If someone want's to use it, they'll just have to find a way to upgrade. This is not an unfair, nor unrealistic policy. And it's better for C++. If some submission is very populer but only supports C++11, it will help drive C++ forward - which to me is one of the principle goals and accomplishments of Boost so far. And the work in making a new submission backward compatible is basically wasted and the value of this work diminishes to nothing over time. Let's keep Boost looking forward ! Robert Ramey

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