Boost logo

Boost :

From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-15 19:20:22

Reid Sweatman <reids_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> As for implicitly condoning a non-compliant implementation, I think the
> effect will actually be the reverse; there's such a huge installed base of
> VC++ that the effect of not providing work-arounds will be to make users not
> use the Boost library. Now before you say that's a good thing, I'd argue
> that having a lot of people using good, compliant code, and having it made
> obvious to them that it's being heavily kludged for their compiler will make
> them either switch compilers or complain loudly in numbers to MS. Either
> way, I'd say that was a win.

The point of heavilly kludged code is preciselly that users
don't know about the kludges. Otherwise, it just means that
the kludges weren't sufficients.

Do you sugest half-kludge code for MS, so that MS users will
be able to begin using boost headers, but will have to stop
after some time, complaining loudly to the MS support staff ?

Let me suggest the following:

# define FIRST_USED_AT __DATE__
# ifdef __MSVC
# error You have used Boost for more than DAY_USE_LIMIT days with
# error This is too much. MSVC is a bad compiler. You must stop
# error MSVC NOW.
# for (;;)
# error MS is evil
# endfor
# uninstall MSVC
# endif
# endif

Valentin Bonnard
------------------------------------------------------------------------ home: - Simplifying group communications

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at