On 11/3/18 8:58 AM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
On 11/3/2018 10:47 AM, 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".
I assume that the "dropping C++03 support" was also about building Boost for C++11 on up.
Hmmm - since C++ versions are backward compatible, almost any C++03 conforming program is also conforming to subsequent versions. The only exceptions are a very few deprecations (like auto). This leads me to not understand what it means to "drop C++03 support". If one want's to compile all of boost with C++11, it should work - subject to the few cases site above. I don't see any need for any action by anyone. Has anyone tried to build all of boost with C++ set to version 11? What are the results? If I had nothing else to do, I could do it. But it's a moot question for me in any case. Hmmm - then why am I replying here? I don't know. Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost