Re: [boost] Deprecation and Boost

From: Russell Hind (rh_gmane_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-08 01:24:48

David Abrahams wrote:
> Nicola Musatti <Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> No, really, the solution is for Borland to fix their compiler, or for
> market pressure to drive everyone to drop it.  Let's keep things in
> perspective.
> 

I agree, but this isn't going to happen in the near-term given a release 
has just been done.  And we are putting pressure on Borland to do this. 
  And I do think they've now realised this is important to customers. 
But I don't expect boost developers to use up what little time they have 
trying to support the broken compiler either.  Since ublas dropped 
support for bcb6, I've always said I'm happy for all of boost to now 
drop support for BCB6 because we can't move forward anyway.  I realise 
that ublas may not be as widely used as other libraries, but date_time 
and filesystem have mentioned dropping support for it, so once libraries 
do drop their support, I don't see the point of boost maintaining 
official support so I'm all for deprecating it and saying 1.34.0 (or 
even 1.33.x) is the last release to support BCB6.

But there was a lot of fundamental stuff broken under the hood of the 
compiler that required fixing before compliance could be noticably 
increased which is what happened with the release of BDS2006.

Alisdair and Nicola and have got boost-1.33.1 and are getting 
boost-1.34.0 working on BDS but for those of us stuck on boost-1.32.0 
means we can't even move to the latest compiler.

As Nicola suggested, we could use his bcbboost sf project for this so I 
guess that will be the way to go.  (Or for now, we'll just do it 
internally at work).

Cheers

Russell