On 12/16/2020 3:52 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
I would not treat a missing cxxstd as "C++03" because that makes the proposal mostly useless: Your goal was to tell end users whether they can use the library given their std level. Now you treat libraries with missing information as "compatible with everything" so end users will become confused and annoyed and will ultimately not use this. I'd hence make it explicit and never assume.
All I meant here is that no 'cxxstd' field for a library means C++03 as the minimal level. How we decide to display this to the end-user can be discussed and I will go along with whatever others think is best. Obviously we can display the library information by specifying C++03 as the minimal level, or adversely we can display nothing for that given library as a C++ minimal standard level, including even the mention of a "Minimum C++ standard compilation level', and let the user assume that since nothing is displayed the library is usable with any C++ standard level. But that would be wrong, wouldn't it? A C++11 library which hasn't merged the PR adding the cxxstd field (there are quite some inactive ones) would be shown/treated as "C++03 is the minimum required", which is not correct.
I had decided to wait on programming anything on the appropriate web page(s) until all libraries to which I have submitted the PR merged it. This does not have to be a rush job and it will take me some time to figure out the PHP code on the web pages so I can alter them to use the JSON cxxstd value appropriately.
So I'd rather not display anything if the information is missing to show exactly that: No information is available. Authors who care will then add this information as appropriate.
BTW: This will ultimately end up at (e.g.) https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_75_0/, won't it? Or where would that be displayed? The idea is that upcoming release docs would incorporate the information, but I am not adverse showing this for 1.75 if people want that. Sorry, didn't mean 1.75 specifically, only this page. So one can rather watch https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/develop I guess
OK, that seems like the right page.
BTW: That pages show "Revised $Date$" at the bottom
And the new field needs to be added at https://www.boost.org/development/library_metadata.html
Thanks for pointing that out.
If so the field "Standard" should be clarified. I'm not sure what it means here and it often is empty (which I'd simply remove)
I agree, and some better, and longer phrase than just 'standard' should probably be chosen. I do believe the phrase was meant to specify the C++ standard release in which the library was accepted as a C++ standard library, but I have no idea what meta information, with what sort of value, was supposed to supply this information.
I would just remove it. On the above docu page it says:
std: A list of the standardization status of the library. Currently just supports 'tr1' for included in TR1 and 'proposal' for a current proposal. Will add more in the future..
At the current state "more" wasn't added and all information is pretty much outdated
I agree with you.