On 2019-11-08 05:23, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:09 PM Robert Ramey wrote:
On 11/7/19 2:27 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
What is being proposed is a sanctioned mechanism for library maintainers to drop C++03 in an orderly manner. Any library maintainer who wishes to maintain C++03 support is free to do so.
I don't see any difference between this and the current policy. As far as I know no library developer has ever been required to provide support for other than the current standard. Of course if I'm wrong about this, then feel free to make this policy explicit. I don't see it changing anything.
It's different in this way: Some Boost authors and contributors do feel constrained even if the official policy is to support only the latest/current standard from breaking either an existing Boost library that depends on that library that supports C++03, or breaking some software that uses that Boost library which must be compiled in C++03.
For example, during a Boost beta release, reports might come in from users saying that X library no longer works for them because they need C++03 support. Or after a release, a Linux distribution package set fails to build, because they compile those programs in C++03 mode, and the Boost library stops compiling in C++03 mode.
This new proposal doesn't change anything. If a developer feels the obligation to support C++03 then it is an obligation before users, and no document initiated by Boost changes that. If a developer wishes to break that obligation and switch to C++11 then nothing prevented him to do that before. Sure, there would be some fallout, and there will be still after this proposal, so the preferred way to do that is to introduce vX+1 of the library. The only thing that could be changed is to forcefully upgrade all libraries to require C++11 and call it Boost 2.x, but I'm not sure if that would be useful. It would save each library from vX+1 hassle, at least.