RE: [boost] boost::config and covariant return types

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
section
>  >>  >10.3.5 of the standard?
>  >>
>  >> Keep in mind that the Boost config system is intended for internal use
> in
>  >> 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
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>.
>
> For the reasons given by Jens and others, I doubt you would find any
> support at all from the standards committee.
>
OK.

> 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.
>
> --Beman
>
Glad to hear this.
I hope Borland is one of those vendors.

Fernando Cacciola
Sierra s.r.l.
fcacciola_at_[hidden]
www.gosierra.com