Boost logo

Boost :

From: George A. Heintzelman (georgeh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-29 14:33:16

> 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
> current
> > version).
> Well then let me cast a vote for "optimism".

> If we assume that future versions have all the same defects, how will we
> know
> that defects have been fixed? We'll carry on using the workarounds for
> ever.

I also vote for "optimism". Historically, I've seen pessimism cause
exactly this effect in major packages, such as the Sun CC 5.0 compiler
vis-a-vis its Roguewave standard library implementation...

Besides, this approach might help encourage faster fixes to
compiler/library defects, as users shout "<newest version unnamed
compiler here> *still* doesn't support <feature that other compilers
have supported for multiple years>"; if we retain the workaround
support, they might not notice that lack of support.

George Heintzelman

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