From: vesa_karvonen (vesa.karvonen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-16 04:57:15
--- In boost_at_y..., Thomas Witt <witt_at_i...> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2002 19:08, you wrote:
> > From: "Thomas Witt" <witt_at_i...>
> > - Which is the best solution in the long term:
> > A) let unportable (in this case, relying on a particular
> > feature/bug) code propagate
> > B) not let unportable code propagate
> The practical effect of your proposal would be to actually hide
I think you've got this backwards. The practical effect of the fix is
to *prevent* code from relying on a particular non-standard compiler
feature. When you are not using the fix, your code may have hidden
bugs that surface when you start using a standard conforming compiler.
Of course, I can't force everyone to do the smart thing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk