Within the discussion for the review of the proposed Boost.Local library, Hartmut Kaiser raised a concern that I think should be addressed more broadly by the community, if possible. I quote Hartmut:
Ok. However this raises a more serious question. Should we as the Boost community still encourage solutions and libraries solely for portability with ancient compilers? I'd say no, but YMMV. Boost will be still around 2, 5, or 10 years from now. What's the utility of adding such a _solely_ backwards oriented library from this POV?
Indeed, I ask the community, do such libraries belong in Boost? If so, is the bar for acceptance of such libraries automatically and necessarily higher than libraries that introduce genuinely new capabilities in C++11? If so, what additional criteria must such a library meet? I add two additional notes to help put the discussion in context: - Within the proposed Boost.Local review discussion, several individuals pointed out that they will likely have to work professionally on C++03 compilers for at least a few more years. - Recall that Boost has several (recent) libraries that could easily be labelled as "transitional" libraries: Move, Atomic (at least proposed, not sure if accepted), Container. Further, several older libraries are now part of the C++11 standard (e.g., Thread (right?)). - Jeff