From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-01 06:27:58
on 6/1/00 7:18 AM, Mark Rodgers at mark.rodgers_at_[hidden] wrote:
> What I don't really want to do, is pay the price of having other users'
> non-conformant implementations affect the readability of the code I write
> and use.
I really agree, but it's a balancing act I think. A boost library may only
be as valuable as the number of people that adopt it. If you don't provide a
*way* to use it with a compiler that doesn't support, say PARTIAL
SPECIALIZATION (this (*&#@@#~! means you, Micro*&$#!), it may not see lots
of action. So, while I hate bending over backwards to achieve portability,
some amount of flexibility may be important.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk