From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-16 09:33:07
I count quite a few messages about it. In any case, I looked it over in a
little more detail and continue to like it. I would echo Darin Adler's
remarks about keeping generally-useful facilities general. For example, for
suppressing warnings in generic code it might be important to avoid
comparing an unsigned number with zero, or to perform some kind of promotion
in order to compare numbers of different types. I'm sure you have handled
some of these things in your code; I'd like to see them made generally
I do think a formal review would be appropriate at this point. Why don't you
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Abrahams <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> > What is happening with this proposal? Did the group come to a consensus
> > about it? I hate to see promising work languish...
> I got very little feedback.
> I was able to make the code compile with gcc3.1 (as well as Borland), and
> I've been working on making it compile with VC6 (I almost got it)
> But given so little response I'm not sure what to do. Should I ask for a
> formal review? In that case, but do I need to set up for a formal review?
> Fernando Cacciola
> Sierra s.r.l.
> Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk