Rainer Orth wrote: > Garrett D'Amore writes: > >> If I understand correctly, Stefan's response is that minor/micro >> versions are required because there *can* be incompatible changes in the >> Boost libraries from upstream. That is to say, Boost doesn't guarantee >> binary compatibility, but instead requires developers to code to a >> specific release. > > That's what I now found in the BOOST FAQ at > > http://www.boost.org/users/faq.html > > (How can the Boost libraries be used successfully for important projects?) > Some postings on their mailing lists indicate that their track record for > compatiblity isn't particularly good, even silently breaking compatibility > in micro releases (which seem to be rare, though). > >> While this may seem unfortunate, its the way Boost developers work, I >> guess. Its not particularly worse, IMO, than the other problems >> inherent in using C++ when you care about compatibility. > > Seems so, yes.
This happens mainly because BOOST is, first and foremost, a language research project. The intent is to discover and provide implementations for new language idioms and techniques, and as such, maintaining compatibility takes a second seat. The consistency and compatibility aspect is addressed by including BOOST components in the Language Standard, at which point these components acquire the expected Interface Stability Classification commitment. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman Sun Microsystems, Inc. Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM
