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: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-04 16:01:00

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 04 October 2010, 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?)

Just curious, where is support for MSVC6 support advertised by Boost?  And 
where do we state authors are required to support it?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkyqMnwACgkQ5vihyNWuA4WOgACgrbdmVQyo7aSI8nw0A1wbB658
DgIAoMBLKnXFdv2uGFZ7I4coqV7Kq8ke
=B26l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----