From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-27 14:30:48
----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types
> Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> > Quite true.
> > However, I wonder: would it be possible to Standardize a header along
> > lines of boost config? That might allow every piece of code, even
> > 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
> > 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
> against it.
Sorry; but, against "having a compiler_config header" or against
"considering optional features a bad idea"?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk