Re: [boost] [filesystem] temp_directory_path() behavior on Windows

Subject: Re: [boost] [filesystem] temp_directory_path() behavior on Windows
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-02-16 22:44:17

On 17 Feb 2015 at 0:56, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:

> [Niall Douglas]
> > what's the point of keeping static libs?
> 
> Redist unnecessary, single executable, immunity to DLL replacement
> mischief (consider antivirus products). 

Have the problems with mixing binaries compiled against the DLL with 
others compiled against the static lib been fixed in the new 
refactor?

My big problem with the static libs was always that some selfish 
vendor would use the static libs and balls everything up for everyone 
else in the same process space. This is why I'd really like the 
static libs to permanently go away.

OTOH, if those interop problems have been fixed, I might switch to 
the static libs myself.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/