I believe it does require C++11, due to std::nullptr_t and r-value references (&&), but that might be it. It's not a show stopper though since everyone should have a c++11 compiler now (even Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, which still has paid support I believe).
> One thing I like about the C++11 compilers like GCC 4.9 is they build code magnificently faster than recent editions
Kind of reminds me of gcc 2.95 which people kept around for the compiler speed. They would use gcc 3.x for the warning support and then compile with gcc 2.95 after fixing the warnings :).
I think the point of pointing out it's C++11 is that it's not "classic C++" as it's using "modern C++" features. Thus it's a mystery why it would be referred to as classic C++.
Actually, it does. I mean, does it compile when you pass -std=c++98?
> This library was originally written in C.
Doesn't matter. If it uses C++11 features, it's C++11.
> I feel perfectly comfortable calling C++11 "classic" or even "baroque" compared to what people are doing with C++ in 2024.
Irrelevant. You can go the Humpty Dumpty way as far as you want to go and call anything any way. It doesn't matter. If you use C++11 features, it's C++11. If it's C++11 then you're discussing modern C++. You don't need to use all bells and whistles to quality.