Re: upgrade to c++11

[immanuel litzroth]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

immanuel litzroth <address@hidden> writes:

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

>> 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.

What's your point?  "has a lot of stuff" is not independently useful.

 Well, I don't know GUB so I have idea as to the work involved or whether it would even

make sense. I do know that writing stuff that boost has on offer is a very bad idea. I also 

have some experience with c++11 and that has been really good. That's all folks.

i