Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-04-13 13:26:57


--- In boost_at_y..., Thomas Witt <witt_at_i...> wrote:
> I would prefer to see the bad test results. Ok these are not
quality tests
> for the compiler, but whoever is looking into using boost is very
unlikely to
> use a compiler that cannot compile boost.

However, Boost bends over backwards to make even the worst compilers
compliant with as much of it's libraries as possible. So just
because compiler X passes the majority of the tests (maybe even all)
is not an indication that the compiler is worth a plug nickel or that
Boost is in any way endorsing it.

I agree that the test results are useful but I don't agree that this
is enough to indicate that Boost does not endorse the product.

Bill Kempf


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk