Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-22 09:27:52

At 09:21 AM 1/22/2001 +0000, Steven Youngs wrote:

>I spotted the original post from David Wolfram on a microsoft news group
> if I remember correctly. I
>replied to him in private email suggesting that he also ask his question
>the boost mailing list where I hoped he'd get a more representative
>to his questions [maybe others also suggested boost to him as well - I
>don't know].

Thanks, Steve. Given the amount of time boost developers waste trying to
get conforming code to work with VC++, we certainly have a vested interest
in seeing MS improve their compiler.

>Now maybe his post is slightly off topic in some peoples eyes...

I don't see the original post as being off topic so much as I see it as
something we could waste a whole lot of discussion time on. People on the
C++ committee use the term "violent agreement" when discussion participants
actually agree on some outcome, but insist on arguing about the details. I
always hate to see people get all worked up over things they basically
agree about.

Anyhow, I hope boost members will respond privately or even publicly to
David Wolfram's original post if they care about library interoperability.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at