> > I would go one step further: let's aim for C++14. > > I was expecting you to propose that. :-)
And I knew your answer beforehand :-). > I'm very reluctant to rely on a cutting-edge compiler for compiling > Bro. There's really not much worse for an open-source tool than > downloading the code and then realizing that your system's compiler is > too old to handle it. I fully understand the concerns regarding our users: it's unreasonable to request manual bootstrapping of compilers or devoting extensive time just to install Bro. My main point was from a developer pointer of view: why drive with the handbrake on if it's not necessary. That said, if we're well aware of the limitations of C++11, I don't see an issue with this "compromise." > We should probably reverse the order of my list: survey OSs first what > they ship these days, then decide what we are fine requiring. Agreed. GCC 4.8 and Clang 3.3 are hopefully well-supported by most distributions by the end of the year. Matthias _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev