On 11/3/2018 1:07 PM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
On 03/11/2018 14:47, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
So I don't quite understand what were the recent discussions about "dropping C++03" about.
It appears that not many do.
In short, the point is that much of the outside world thinks of Boost as a single thing. Our perspective as library maintainers is that libraries are independent, but that's not how others view them.
To give you a specific example, if Parameter drops C++03 support, `b2 install` will fail on all compilers where C++03 is default because Log will fail to build. This is spelled "Boost 1.70 fails to build".
Not if the Jamfile is marked up to require the C++11 (or whatever) features required - then it simply won't be built in 03 mode. Of course that may still be an issue if 03 is the compilers default mode :(
If we have announced that Boost will no longer support C++03, one of whose meanings is that compiling in C++03 mode may no longer work, then it is up to the end-user not to compile in C++03 mode, whether that is the compiler's default mode or not.
John.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus