[boost] Re: compile time asserts

From: Reid Sweatman (borderland_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-27 11:10:58

Even though until recently VC++ 5.0 and 6.0 SP3 were my main compilers, and
I still have to do contract work using them, I tend to agree with this
statement.  What I'd suggest is that the assert module be written ignoring
VC++, but so as to allow the necessary specializations to be added.  Then,
anyone for who VC++ support is essential can supply the specializations.
That way, the members for whom it's a non-issue wouldn't have to mess with
it.

BTW, it was comments on this list that led me recently to switch to
CodeWarrior as a much more compliant compiler.  I would have done KAI,
probably, save that its NT version lags its UNIX versions, and I develop
mostly for NT and 98.

If anyone cares, or believes it, a rep in MS's System Languages Division
told me that true template and namespace support was top of the list for the
next release.  Of course, who knows when that'll be?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Colvin [mailto:gcolvin_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 7:24 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: compile time asserts
>
>
> From: John Maddock <John_Maddock_at_[hidden]>
> ...  The problem is that VC6 chokes on this at function scope ...
>
> In my opinion this group expends an unconsionable amount
> of talent on dealing with all the ways in which VC6 is
> broken.  Especially for a facility like this one, which is
> a compile tine only facility, I find it quite acceptable
> that VC6 be unsupported.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your money connected @ OnMoney.com - the first Web site that lets you
> see, consolidate, and manage all of your finances all in one place.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1636/1/_/9351/_/951575188/
>
> eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost/
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>