From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-01 11:20:30
----- Original Message -----
From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 10:10 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types
> At 02:15 PM 9/27/2001, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> >To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
> >Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:56 PM
> >Subject: Re: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types
> >> At 11:06 AM 9/27/2001, Markus Schoepflin wrote:
> >> >I just noticed that there is no define for detecting the absence of
> >> >covariant return types in the config system.
> >> >
> >> >Would it be possible to add something like
> >> >BOOST_NO_COVARIANT_RETURN_TYPES to detect missing support for
> >> >10.3.5 of the standard?
> >> Keep in mind that the Boost config system is intended for internal use
> >> Boost libraries. It isn't intended to solve general broken compiler
> >> problems.
> >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>.
> For the reasons given by Jens and others, I doubt you would find any
> support at all from the standards committee.
> Remember too that C++ compilers are getting closer to being standards
> conforming. Metrowerks shipped their latest September 10th. GCC has put
> out two releases this summer and has committed publicly to an aggressive
> schedule of future releases. Microsoft is well into a second beta for
> their upcoming release. Comeau is claiming they will soon support
> "export". In private communications I've had with several vendors, it
> seems there is increased interest in making sure compilers can handle at
> least the Boost libraries, if not more portable, standards conforming C++
> code in general.
Glad to hear this.
I hope Borland is one of those vendors.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk