Date: 2001-03-13 14:55:30
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_m...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > What I don't like about it is that it requires the use of GCC.
> > we really need is a standalone utility that does this. Said
> > needs to be highly portable, much like GCC itself, but should not
> > as complex or large as the full blown GCC compiler set.
Why what? Why not as large and complex? Because it makes it harder
to install and, more importantly, use. A full compiler needs this
complexity, but a tool like this does not, and I'd hate to have one
that was since it would mean just one more thing you'd have to learn.
> We could build the tool once for each platform and be done with it.
Building the tool isn't the main concern. If and when we have a
decent build system it should be trivial to build the tool even if
packaged binaries weren't available.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk