From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-01 08:21:26
At 07:27 AM 6/1/00 -0400, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>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
>> non-conformant implementations affect the readability of the code
>> and use.
>I really agree, but it's a balancing act I think. A boost library
>be as valuable as the number of people that adopt it. If you don't
>*way* to use it with a compiler that doesn't support, say PARTIAL
>SPECIALIZATION (this (*&#@@#~! means you, Micro*&$#!), it may not
>of action. So, while I hate bending over backwards to achieve
>some amount of flexibility may be important.
I agree strongly with the above. This is a balancing act.
By the way, we might also want to start thinking of test cases we
could run through a bunch of compilers and libraries to make sure
whatever we do really works.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk