From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-07 06:22:36
>On one hand, it should not be a showstopper if boostification of an
>existing library isn't 100% perfect.
>On the other hand, having a separate "autoconf"-based configuration system
>rather than relying on boost/config.hpp seems undesirable to me.
>Part of the solution to this problem might be to get some help from other
>boost members. I expect there are several willing to help. It should be
>possible via CVS or otherwise for John to retain final control over
>Would that work for switching from "autoconf" to boost/config.hpp?
Part of the problem are the shear number of workarounds/configuration
macros I've had to apply, I've tried to depreciate a few as compilers have
improved, but the main problem remains deeply non-standard standard
libraries: C libraries in particular. If these are of interest to boost,
I'm happy to see them moved to config.hpp, be warned however that many of
my configuration options are quite specific to regex++ in that they test
for exactly the standard library feature set used, not for say a completely
conformant <cwchar>, because that would fail every compiler I've ever used
And yes, I would welcome help in porting the library to other platforms,
and/or dealing with the configuration file issues.
Anyway, I'm going to be offline for a week or two now, have fun!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk