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