From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-16 08:52:17
>> I would not treat a missing cxxstd as "C++03" because that makes the
>> proposal mostly useless: Your goal was to tell end users whether they
>> can use the library given their std level. Now you treat libraries
>> with missing information as "compatible with everything" so end users
>> will become confused and annoyed and will ultimately not use this.
>> I'd hence make it explicit and never assume.
>
> All I meant here is that no 'cxxstd' field for a library means C++03
> as the minimal level. How we decide to display this to the end-user
> can be discussed and I will go along with whatever others think is
> best. Obviously we can display the library information by specifying
> C++03 as the minimal level, or adversely we can display nothing for
> that given library as a C++ minimal standard level, including even the
> mention of a "Minimum C++ standard compilation level', and let the
> user assume that since nothing is displayed the library is usable with
> any C++ standard level.
But that would be wrong, wouldn't it? A C++11 library which hasn't
merged the PR adding the cxxstd field (there are quite some inactive
ones) would be shown/treated as "C++03 is the minimum required", which
is not correct.
So I'd rather not display anything if the information is missing to show
exactly that: No information is available. Authors who care will then
add this information as appropriate.
>> BTW: This will ultimately end up at (e.g.)
>> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_75_0/, won't it? Or where would that
>> be displayed?
> The idea is that upcoming release docs would incorporate the
> information, but I am not adverse showing this for 1.75 if people want
> that.
Sorry, didn't mean 1.75 specifically, only this page. So one can rather
watch https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/develop I guess
BTW: That pages show "Revised $Date$" at the bottom
And the new field needs to be added at
https://www.boost.org/development/library_metadata.html
>>
>> If so the field "Standard" should be clarified. I'm not sure what it
>> means here and it often is empty (which I'd simply remove)
>
> I agree, and some better, and longer phrase than just 'standard'
> should probably be chosen. I do believe the phrase was meant to
> specify the C++ standard release in which the library was accepted as
> a C++ standard library, but I have no idea what meta information, with
> what sort of value, was supposed to supply this information.
I would just remove it. On the above docu page it says:
std: A list of the standardization status of the library. Currently
just supports 'tr1' for included in TR1 and 'proposal' for a current
proposal. Will add more in the future..
At the current state "more" wasn't added and all information is pretty
much outdated