Re: [Boost-users] [UTF] expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before '(' token

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

"Mateusz Loskot" wrote in message news:4415BCE3.8000304@loskot.net...

...

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

...

...

I have some more questions if you don't mind. Unfortunately, I'm a bit disappointed about how easy it's possible to break backward compatibility between close releases of Boost.

Boost.Test *is* backward compartible. It's not forward compartible though. Meaning you couldn't use new examples with old library. Some features are indeed getting deprecated. But usually it takes 2-3 releases at least (in time frame it's close to 1-2 years).

Unless you have any particular issues using old example with new library, do you?

Hi Gennadiy,

It seems I don't understand something or I've not expressed the problem clearly. Let me try again.

I started with Boost.Test from Boost 1.34. After some time, I realized that many of my users will be able to use only Boost 1.33. Then, I noticed that my Unit Tests based on Boost's UTF are not working with Boost 1.33. So, that's what I understand as a "broken backward compatibility". Boost UTF interface seems to be changed in 1.34, so it's not possible to use Unit Tests written using Boost 1.34 with Boost 1.33. If Boost 1.34 was backward compatible, then those tests prepared with 1.34 could be run using 1.33. Am I right?

No. This is forward compartibility. You want older version handle code written for newer version

Yes, now it's clears, sorry for my misunderstanding.

...

OK, I agree backward/forward understanding may be different, so please don't stick to those words, but to my explanation.

Now, how should I move on with Boost.Test to ensure that: - users using Boost 1.33 will be able to run my tests - users using Boost 1.34 and higher will be able to run my tests

Don't use features/interfaces introduced in 1.34. Stick to 1.33 one.

OK, that's what I suppose to do, but furst I wanted to follow your recommendation: "You still could use it. But it's going to be removed in some future release." Thanks for your explanation Cheers -- Mateusz Łoskot http://mateusz.loskot.net