Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-27 16:32:55

Next message: Thomas Matelich: "Re: [boost] boost users : articles"
Previous message: toon: "boost users : articles"
In reply to: Fernando Cacciola: "RE: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types"
Next in thread: Fernando Cacciola: "RE: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types"
Reply: Fernando Cacciola: "RE: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types"

Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> > 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"?

Against having a compiler_config header and thus officially
accepting and trying to deal with less-capable implementations on
the standard level.

Jens Maurer

Next message: Thomas Matelich: "Re: [boost] boost users : articles"
Previous message: toon: "boost users : articles"
In reply to: Fernando Cacciola: "RE: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types"
Next in thread: Fernando Cacciola: "RE: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types"
Reply: Fernando Cacciola: "RE: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

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