From: Thompson, Todd L (TLThompson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-13 14:01:08
I have been listening to this list for awhile but haven't contributed, so I
humbly submit my thoughts on this.
I think that if this is option is made available to any vendor then it would
then be available to any vendor that choose to participate.
If I understand what is being requested by the vendor than would it suffice
in the heading of the compiler status table to indicate something like, "XXX
Compiler, courtesy of X company. <link> <logo>"? Then I think it would a
smashing good idea.
I would think the best choice in this case is to keep it simple.
I think it would be helpful in the compiler table if there was an indication
if a workaround was required or not.
Todd Thompson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: williamkempf_at_[hidden] [mailto:williamkempf_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 1:27 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Acknowledging corporate support?
>
>
> --- In boost_at_y..., Thomas Witt <witt_at_i...> wrote:
> > I would prefer to see the bad test results. Ok these are not
> quality tests
> > for the compiler, but whoever is looking into using boost is very
> unlikely to
> > use a compiler that cannot compile boost.
>
> However, Boost bends over backwards to make even the worst compilers
> compliant with as much of it's libraries as possible. So just
> because compiler X passes the majority of the tests (maybe even all)
> is not an indication that the compiler is worth a plug nickel or that
> Boost is in any way endorsing it.
>
> I agree that the test results are useful but I don't agree that this
> is enough to indicate that Boost does not endorse the product.
>
> Bill Kempf
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to:
> <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>