From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-13 11:40:40
Nathan Myers wrote:
> I thought we had agreed that Boost wouldn't have workarounds
> for missing standard features. People with broken compilers
> don't have to include Boost headers. Once you start down
> the road of supporting broken compilers, where do you stop?
>
> I don't see anything wrong with accommodating differences of
> interpretation (e.g. "standard" vs. "standard+DRs"), but without
> major features like member templates, it's a different language,
> maybe calling for different (e.g. non-Boost) libraries.
>
> Is BOOST_NEXCEPTIONS next? BOOST_EMBEDDED?
I tend to agree. Conditionnal compilation always
et messy when many compiler variations are allowed.
See for example the SGI STL, or worst, STLport.
Some years before, I would have agreed with Beman,
but now I think that writing standard conforming
code is the right thing to do.
I particulary dislike all the GNU programming
utilities that I don't understand like configure,
autoconf, autoheader... (probably mostly because
I don't understand them).
But if old compilers are handled, yes, that should
be done in a centralized way.
In any case: don't bless standardised language
subsets !
-- Valentin Bonnard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications