It appears that the discussion has drifted somewhat from the original
question.
Perhaps addressing the following two points that were overlooked could help
in finding a solution that works for everyone:
1. As Vinnie inquired: given the existence of std::move, what could be the
recommended approach for boost::move?
2. As Peter suggested, could it be possible to include boost::move in a
dedicated subsection on the website so that newcomers in the C++23 era
aren’t overwhelmed by decades of historical context?
Answering the question for at least one instance of the problem
(boost::move) may help finding a collective way to solve all of them ;)
Best regards and rainbow kitties,
Arno
Le lun. 7 oct. 2024 à 07:02, Robert Ramey via Boost
On 10/6/24 5:31 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 5:21 PM Robert Ramey via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 10/6/24 5:06 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
Should Boost have kept C++03?
...The recent effort to "deprecate" support for older compilers was a total waste of time and effort and added nothing to boost....
After trimming away the superfluous words, your answer can be stated concisely as "yes" (to keeping C++03)
LOL - any C++03 compatible code is also compatible with the latest version of C++. It is not within anyone's power to "keep" or "not keep" C++03. It's always there and always will be as long as C++ keeps it promise to maintain backward compatibility.
Thanks
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost