Re: [boost] config/conformance issue

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
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.

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.

--Beman