Re: [Boost-users] Users! Who'd like to wave goodbye to #ifdef BOOST_MSVC6_* workarounds?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Users! Who'd like to wave goodbye to #ifdef BOOST_MSVC6_* workarounds?
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-04 14:36:06

On Oct 4, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-users-
>> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John Maddock
>> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:21 AM
>> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Users! Who'd like to wave goodbye to #ifdef
>> BOOST_MSVC6_* workarounds?
>> 
>>> Is there a 'do nothing' option here? Ie., leave the codebase unchanged
>>> but no longer declare MSVC6 support, and so no longer require authors
>>> to support it?
>> 
>> LOL, I suspect that's the current situation ;-)
> 
> Agree - so let's just leave the code as is (perhaps adding a stronger
> "you're entirely on your own with VC6" rider?)
> 
> The risks of removing are not worth the effort.
> 

I disagree.

I'm confident that there are places where removing VC6 support is more trouble than it is worth.
I'm _also_ confident that there are places where removing VC6 will lead to simpler, easier to maintain code.

So, I guess my vote is a '0' - I think that the library maintainers should decide for their own library(ies).

[ FWIW, I think that removing VC6-specific code is, in the abstract, a good idea. ]

> (And whoever suggested it would be fun needs to get out more ;-)

That's a completely different discussion ;-)

-- Marshall