Hans Åberg wrote: > Indeed. Others, may not want to patch their installations even it > they can, as it may cause problems for other packages. Say if one > writes package that uses a standard Bison installation, then it > would be dangerous to patch it up with an experimental one.
Not really dangerous, as my C++17 patch only adds new files. (My other patches change existing files, but they are rather small, and just bugfixes.) > >> But if someone uses their of variants type, would that require C++11? > > > > Yes, the skeleton uses move semantics (i.e. rvalue references), so > > C++11 is the minimum. (Not entirely sure if I accidentally used some > > C++14 feature, as that's what I tested with besides C++17, but if > > so, it may be rather easy to avoid.) > > Would it in principle possible to use ones own variants that does > not require C++11 and put the C++11 code within preprocessor > directives so that it works for earlier C++ versions? - I am not > sure there would be any use for this, just wondering. Not (easily) with my patch, as it uses move semantics throughout. For this use case, I think it would be easier to start with the C++03 skeleton and change the variant implementation there. Regards, Frank
