From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-12-22 15:52:42
At 07:48 AM 12/22/99 -0500, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>4. Unlike earlier versions, the upcoming STLPort has a complete
>library implementation, so it can act as a substitute for your
>library. I can probably send you an alpha version, if you care.
If STLPort really produces a complete standard library implementation
that works better with boost libraries than the standard libraries
shipped with the Microsoft and GCC compilers (which lots of boost
members seem to use), maybe we should mention that on the boost web
site and provide an STLPort link.
Beyond that, if some other compiler/library pairs work well with
boost libraries, they could also be given credit.
I have resisted this in the past, partially out of inertia and
partially because I wanted any mention of specific compilers or
libraries to be objective. Well, measuring whether a
compiler/library works or not on a specified list of a given version
of the boost libraries *is* objective.
The objectives in doing this would be multiple:
* Warn users and implementors of trouble-prone compilers &
so they don't waste time rediscovering known problems.
* Encourage compiler and standard library implementors to fix
* Encourage boost developers to produce libraries that work
well with reasonable compilers and standard libraries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk