Subject: Re: [boost] New dependency report
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-07 00:47:06
On 6/6/2014 5:23 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> On 6 June 2014 21:41, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Looking through code in MPL, and other long-standing libraries may be
>> similar, the need to keep compiler workarounds in the code for compilers
>> which are obsolete, or do not implement basic parts of even the C++ 98
>> standard, makes understanding and updating code fairly difficult in many
>> cases. I believe that Boost has a right to say to those who still want to
>> use some of these compilers with Boost that they will have to stick to
>> previous versions. It really becomes difficult for a number of Boost
>> libraries to move forward if they have to continually support poorly
>> conforming compilers. As obvious examples I would not bother trying to
>> support VC++ versions prior to VS2005/VC8 and I would not bother trying to
>> support gcc versions prior to 4.0 etc.
>
> It would be nice if you responded to what I wrote rather than what you
> imagined I wrote. The problem with the MPL changes was that they were
> non-trivial, and for a library which is very arcane (with or without
> workarounds), has little maintenance and a lot of dependants, some of
> which are unmaintained. Also, many of the dependants hadn't merged
> Stephen Kelly's changes (some still haven't) and it wasn't clear if it
> was safe to merge MPL before them. It was nothing to do with
> maintaining support for Visual C++ 7.0.
What does the quoted contents above have anything to do to what you
wrote anywhere ? In other words my response was to a post by John
Maddock and has nothing to do with anything you wrote on this thread.