From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-27 14:17:29
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> Quite true.
> However, I wonder: would it be possible to Standardize a header along the
> lines of boost config? That might allow every piece of code, even outside
> boost, to have a chance to identify and deal with broken compilers.
> Perhaps boost\config.hpp can be considered by the LWG as a starting point
> for a std <compiler_config>.
> What do you think?
Some members of the library working group of the ISO C++ committee
appear to be of the opinion that having "optional" features in the
language is not a good idea. The example of SQL comes up occasionally
as a warning example. Sanctioning a "compiler_config" header in fact
creates such "optional" features.
Should the topic come up in the LWG, I would definitely argue strongly
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk