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
> for the compiler, but whoever is looking into using boost is very
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk