Artyom wrote:
Is there any chance for Stable Boost version?
Boost is a collection of libraries with different characteristics. The best that we can hope is that each individual library declares that it is, for example: - Stable, because it's a completed implementation of e.g. a tr1 or c++0x feature that's not going to change. - Stable, in the sense that new features will be added and old stuff at worst deprecated (e.g. Spirit and its "classic" branch). - Unstable, because it's a new library that's still evolving. - Bah humbug this library maintainer doesn't want to tell you if it's stable or not so you can assume the worst :-) It would help for the docs to spell this out explicitly, but I think most of us can probably guess the answers for the libraries that we use. I have some experience of distributing source code that depends on Boost, and there is an issue here. It's not reasonable to depend on a single version of Boost since distributions only package -dev packages for one version, which could be too new or too old. As a result I tend to avoid dependencies on libraries that I suspect are unstable in this sort of code. There is much less of a problem if you either rely on distributions to establish compatibility or if you distribute binaries. Regards, Phil.