From: Paul Moore (gustav_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-07 16:46:54
From: Beman Dawes [mailto:beman_at_[hidden]]
> * Is portable and not restricted to a particular compiler or
> operating system.
I think we could do with expanding on this. In particular, I would like to
see some guidance on how far we expect implementers to go in supporting
common, but non-standard, compilers (see how I avoided saying MSVC there?
In my view, for Boost to be credible, it needs to be of practical use. Like
it or not, this means having working implementations on the "standard"
compilers. For Unix, I assume this means GCC. For Microsoft, GCC is a start
(with mingw and cygwin available), but I'd like to see Borland and MSVC at
least partially supported. I don't know for Mac or other platforms.
How about a statement to the effect of
* Is portable and not restricted to a particular compiler or operating
system. Implementations should ideally run on currently available compilers
(gcc, MSVC and Borland C++ are widely used). Providing limited functionality
where compiler features are missing is acceptable.
[[I just spent 15 minutes staring at this posting, trying to word a rant
along the lines of "I hate MSVC, but I am forced to use it, I want to use
good C++ libraries and I'm sick of finding the good libraries all have
disclaimers along the lines of "we don't support MSVC because it's too
broken"". Thankfully, I decided not to include it. :-) :-(]]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk