Re: upgrade to c++11

[immanuel litzroth]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

Frédéric Bron <address@hidden> writes:

>> Change them so that they will fail using anything but C++11?  That
>> sounds like it would not buy us anything but trouble at the current
>> point of time.
>
> OK, I forget that.
> I see that boost is not used. Is it deliberate? These are c++03
> libraries and most of them have been the source of the new standard.

"source of standard" means that they are liable to change particularly
in the course of becoming part of a standard.

 

They are very stable, getting a library in boost is not for the faint of heart. 

> They are pretty well supported by distributions and work on windows,
> mac, linux.

They are also humongous, which means a quite larger amount of work for
GUB.

What do you mean with humongous? Boost is large because it has a lot of stuff.

Most of it is very stable and well documented. Interdependencies are minimal.

 Not using boost in any new reasonable sized C++ development project is a mistake, 

I've seen it happen. 

As to using them in lilypond I can't say what the effort/payoff would be. Also we have

some phd's working here. I wouldn't overestimate the quality of their code.

i