El 21/08/2011 20:54, Jeff Garland escribió:
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
IMHO that would be bad news. Until most programmers migrate to a new compiler with C++11 features we'll have to wait for years, enterprise policies are not compatible with changing the already bought licences and environments every yar. Some basic support for C++03 would be nice, we have move emulation and some macro tricks for variadic templates. Just my 2 cents, Best, Ion