On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
That's false. People (some) *will* use them. Not supporting them basically means you're blocking those people from upgrading. Note that existing compilers already have C++17 stuff and people *are* using it.
Of course, there are enthusiasts but most people will start using C++17 much later, e.g. when they upgrade the production system and it ships the new compiler.
And? Are you proposing to delay fixes until those people start complaining?
That's not what he's proposing at all, is it? Boost has a release schedule. People are waiting for Boost 1.65 - either for fixes, or sometimes new features. Andrey is simply suggesting that releasing 1.65 is more important right now, to keep to that release schedule.There are people and groups who take dependencies on Boost libraries not just because of the quality, but because Boost releases frequently. If we're balancing getting a Boost 1.65 release on time instead of delaying it by a few weeks, versus releasing 1.65 with C++17 support now instead of three months from now, Andrey's suggestion is not unreasonable. C++17 will hopefully even be a published ISO standard by the time 1.66 releases. (December is when users would be able to hopefully expect 1.66, ceteris paribus - assuming no more delays for 1.65, based on the release schedule) Glen