I take RFC 3's text as meaning that there doesn't need to be a vote with this switch, but that it's a nice thing for the person doing the update to let the list know of the change happening. If the project wants to switch to C++23, that would imply that a motion is needed.
If that's different from peoples' expectations, we should definitely discuss. If it were a motion, I'd definitely +1 for C++17. On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 6:49 AM Howard Butler via PROJ <proj@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 2, 2025, at 5:54 PM, Even Rouault via PROJ <proj@lists.osgeo.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Happy New Year! > > > > I propose we update our build requirement from C++11 to C++17. This > should hopefully be unnoticed by anyone using a not too antiquated build > chain. > > > > Initial trigger for this move is explained in > https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4366. All our existing CI > configurations already satisfy the C++17 requirement (and one of them was > already testing C++20 compatibility) > > > > I don't anticipate much use of new capabilities for now except perhaps > replacing our internal::make_unique<> by C++14 std::make_unique<> > > > > C++17 has been a build requirement for GDAL since one year and nobody > complained. Cf > https://gdal.org/en/stable/development/rfc/rfc98_build_requirements_gdal_3_9.html > for an analysis of the impacts. > > > > This also satisfies https://proj.org/en/stable/community/rfc/rfc-3.html > which mentions "Keeping a policy of always lagging behind be two iterations > of the standard is thought to be the best comprise between the two > concerns", given that C++20 and C++23 are out. > > > Is this a PSC motion? +1 :) > > Howard > _______________________________________________ > PROJ mailing list > PROJ@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj >
_______________________________________________ PROJ mailing list PROJ@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
