On 10/04/2015 12:18 PM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

...

Sooner rather than later we should have this discussion and setup timeline. IMO it had very little sense to continue to maintain c++03 workarounds. Boost code should be an example how modern c++ libraries should look

Bjorn Reese writes like.

...

And c++03 compatibility is directly in a way of this goal.

You appear to have missed the many discussions on this topic.

While Boost started out to design cutting-edge libraries, it has been caught by its own success. Today there is a large user-base that still uses C++03, and that are unlikely to upgrade in the foreseeable future.

Therefore, the current consensus is that existing libraries should not increase their standards requirements. New libraries are free to decide their standards requirements (although it will probably be questioned during a formal review.)

Support for that is dwindling as more projects adopt 2011 or newer versions of C++. I understand Gennadiy and Raffi's desire to discuss this issue again. C++ 2011 is required to use my software. That decision was also based on limited resources and the belief that C++ 2011 had some helpful things for on line code generation. If I had more resources, I could support C++ 2003, but at this point I'm happy to not have to support that. As time goes on, more people are using C++ 2011 or newer. -- Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net