All, As per the PSARC business meeting I am closing this case as approved since the discussion has concluded.
Thanks, John On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:21, Stefan Teleman wrote: > 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 >
