[boost] Re: config.h[pp]

From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-13 11:40:40

Nathan Myers wrote:

> I thought we had agreed that Boost wouldn't have workarounds
> for missing standard features.  People with broken compilers
> don't have to include Boost headers.  Once you start down
> the road of supporting broken compilers, where do you stop?
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with accommodating differences of
> interpretation (e.g. "standard" vs. "standard+DRs"), but without
> major features like member templates, it's a different language,
> maybe calling for different (e.g. non-Boost) libraries.
> 
> Is BOOST_NEXCEPTIONS next?  BOOST_EMBEDDED?

I tend to agree. Conditionnal compilation always 
et messy when many compiler variations are allowed.

See for example the SGI STL, or worst, STLport.

Some years before, I would have agreed with Beman, 
but now I think that writing standard conforming 
code is the right thing to do.

I particulary dislike all the GNU programming 
utilities that I don't understand like configure, 
autoconf, autoheader... (probably mostly because 
I don't understand them).

But if old compilers are handled, yes, that should 
be done in a centralized way.

In any case: don't bless standardised language 
subsets !

-- 
Valentin Bonnard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications