From: Mark Rodgers (mark.rodgers_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-29 14:09:40
From: "John Maddock" <John_Maddock_at_[hidden]>
> I think that's about 2:1 in favour of a more pessimistic approach so far
> (assuming that future compiler versions have all the defects of the
Well then let me cast a vote for "optimism".
If we assume that future versions have all the same defects, how will we
that defects have been fixed? We'll carry on using the workarounds for
I think it is much better to assume the next version is perfect and then let
the compiler tell us how what workarounds we need to continue with.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk