On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Joel falcou <joel.falcou@gmail.com> wrote:
<radical> Going further, shouldn't we start thinking at boost 2.0 which will definitevely let c++03 die its peaceful death and start, on a voluntary effort, move boost component toward C++11. I know we have a fully working Fusion for 0x only. mpl, proto and other strategic infrastructure libraries should benefit from that. Some are a trivial port like Boost.PP and all the TR1 boost library that will just either disappear or forward the C++11 version. </radical>
For what it's worth, I'm currently looking at creating date-time v2 in preparation for an updated lwg proposal. It expect it will be "mostly" compatible with date-time v1, but with some new twists and adjustments -- enough that I want to rewrite the core code. To save time and energy I'm seriously considering requiring C++11 so that I have access to several new features. In my case I have to also contend with Chrono compatibility -- so supporting C++03 requires switching out to boost::chrono etc. As a structure I'm considering simply creating boost/date_time_v2 and libs/date_time_v2 (or date_time_cpp11 if you prefer) and thus the only #ifdef w.r.t C++11 shows up in date_time.hpp With this approach bcp could pull out the correct date-time for C++11 if that's all you wanted. Obviously other libraries could adopt this approach making it easy to get a c++11 version of boost. The big downside to this sort of direction is that it would require 'forking the library'. On the other hand, much of the 'core of boost' (shared_ptr, etc) isn't needed since it's in std:: Jeff