From: Russell Hind (rh_gmane_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-06 05:26:22
Nicola Musatti wrote:
>
> One thing I do feel strongly about: no matter how broken a library is
> with a specific compiler, deprecation advertising should entail a
> warning and not an error.
>
> This would make it more easy to un-deprecate a platform when it starts
> supporting the required constructs and enables library authors to accept
> platform specific patches on a discretionary basis. Moreover even if
> such patches were not submitted/accepted developers would be free to try
> and use those portions of a library that do work on their platform.
>
> It would also make it possible to accept platform specific patches
> against previous releases of Boost and maybe even allow more bugfix
> releases, should anybody volunteer to perform the necessary tasks.
>
> A concrete example: I'm using Borland's BCB6 at work and we're stuck
> with Boost 1.31 because we're using uBlas, which doesn't support my
> compiler in more recent releases. Now I happen to know that 1.32
> "almost" works and that someone has the necessary patches. Accepting
> these to be committed against the 1.32 branch would enable all those in
> my situation to at least move forward one release (I happen to know that
> there are at least two of us - right, Russell? :-).
>
Further to the ublas patches, I'd also like to look at back-porting your
bcbboost work to the 1.32 branch which would enable us to possibly move
to BDS2006 with boost-1.32.x. But at the moment, like you, we are stuck
on BCB6 and boost-1.32.0 with our ublas patches until Borland releases a
compiler that can handle the later versions (which I don't see happening
anytime soon given that BDS has only just been released).
Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to look in to this for a while
but it is certainly on my to do list as I'd actually like to be able to
evaluate bds on a real project, not just little bits of test code which
I'm limited to at the moment.
Cheers
Russell