From: Brian Allison (brian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 09:36:59
David Abrahams wrote:
Brian Allison [1]<brian_at_[hidden]> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
"Reece Dunn" [1][2]<msclrhd_at_[hidden]> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Sounds good, but I'd like to know, as a practical matter, what the
difference between these two is. Less pressure on developers to
support the 2nd category?
The first would mean that Boost guarantees support for the specified
compiler/version
What does that mean? Every developer is obligated to make his library
work on that compiler? That would be unprecedented (though not out of
the question).
If only highly conformant compilers were on the list of 'guaranteed'
compilers, then the obligation could be restated that the developers
write conformant code and that the compilers be at least X conformant.
Then the developers can concentrate not on catering to a broken
compiler, and those who insist on using such compilers can bear the
brunt of the brokenness - instead of the developers who are donating
their time and efforts to help others through their work.
Just one lurker's opinion - hopefully one for illumination and not
inflamation.
But how would it change anything? We don't "guarantee" anything
today, and I'm pretty sure we won't guarantee anything a year from now
either.
I wasn't suggesting any guarantees be put forth; that's why I used
quotes around 'guaranteed'. Perhaps it would have been less imprecise
if I had said:
If only highly conformant compilers were in the 1st category -
presuming such a category had sufficient usefulness to the developers
to warrant the concept of categorization - then the users of Boost
could be less likely to miss the fact that the only obligation the
developers assigned to themselves was attempting to write compliant
code which a conforming compiler would therefore accept.
Then the developers could concentrate on the expressing the thoughts
into code instead of concerning themselves to any great degree with
non-conformant platforms.
Which would then make it more obvious to the non-developers that the
burden of non-conformant compilers is intrinsically on the shoulders
of those who choose the non-conformant compilers.
Sorry if that's too verbose, I'm under significant workload and
didn't take much time on the explanation. Also, I didn't think that
the most concise message was the empty set - aplogies if I was
mistaken.
Brian
References
1. mailto:brian_at_[hidden]
2. mailto:msclrhd_at_[hidden]