"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek@hotmail.com> writes:
Who will benefit of this all: - library writers who do not want to support old systems (less pressure on them) may spend more time with design. This gets more important if more powerfull/complex libraries will emerge.
All this for less pressure on a few authors? These authors may simply refuse to support older compilers today.
- users with new compilers (they can be more sure the library remains maintainable and may even be able to understand its inner, too). Their existing code using Boost should compile without changes.
That sounds like a break-even to me.
- compiler vendors will be able catch more errors.
How?
- standard comittee may be more interested in clean code.
I doubt it. Historically, the committee isn't particularly interested in our implementations, only in our interfaces.
- if/when the world moves to C++0x it will be easier to move Boost there (this is beyond horizont of this idea though).
How so? Sorry, but I just don't see what problem this is solving. The proposal is a huge undertaking, today or next year, and I don't see any benefits that would make it worth the trouble. Furthermore, compilers will always be broken and require workarounds here and there; you won't be able to keep them from creeping in, and I don't think it's desirable to. Part of the point of Boost is to have code that's usable in the real world. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com