From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-11 20:11:02
> In any case, in light of Ross Smith's comments about file extensions in an
> earlier message, maybe the REAL solution here is to simply drop the
> get<user_execute> function altogether from the Windows version of the code.
> Dietmar has already chosen to omit set<user_execute>, get/set<group_execute>,
> and get/set<other_execute>, because those simply don't make sense on Windows.
I'm not so sure... I once received an "executable" built for windows that
lacked the ".exe" extension. To actually run it, I had to change the file
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk