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: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-05 05:02:27

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-users-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Louis Lavery
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:11 AM
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Users! Who'd like to wave goodbye to #ifdef
> BOOST_MSVC6_* workarounds?
> 
> On 04/10/2010 19:36, Marshall Clow wrote:
> > 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 didn't make clear that I opposed removal of VC6 stuff from Boost
*'global'* config.

I meant that individual authors should remain free to do what they judge
best for their library to cater for VC6, if anything.

If they want to remove VC6 specific stuff, they can, or they can ignore VC6
- as many new libraries do.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]