[boost] Re: config.h[pp]

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-13 12:38:12

At 09:03 AM 7/13/99 -0700, Nathan Myers wrote:

>I thought we had agreed that Boost wouldn't have workarounds
>for missing standard features.

We did, early on before reality set in.  But the people who are
actually submitting libraries are including macro workarounds.

>  People with broken compilers 
>don't have to include Boost headers.

That would restrict usage of Boost libraries to a very small
minority, at least today.  Compilance with all the features Boost
authors are using may be as close as the next release for widely used
compilers, but it is not here today.

>  Once you start down
>the road of supporting broken compilers, where do you stop?

The current versions of the most widely used compilers are already
pretty close to standard compliant.  No need to support older
compilers, or even the few current compilers which have lots of
compliance problems.

Template member functions and partial template specialization are the
areas of major concern today.  The situation has improved markedly
compared to a couple of years ago.   

>Is BOOST_NEXCEPTIONS next?

No, exceptions have been supported for years by most compilers.  

>  BOOST_EMBEDDED?

No, although it has never been discussed explicitly, Boost is
currently focused entirely on hosted environments.

--Beman

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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