From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-24 08:18:07
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Shirk" <jasonsh_at_[hidden]>
> First, 7.1 isn't even close to a rewrite. I have no idea where anyone
> might have gotten that impression. Please don't ever mention it
> it will scare people unnecessarily.
It just seemed obvious to me given the number of things which don't work
in 7 (or work wrong) but which reportedly do work in 7.1; however, there
is often a gap between the obvious and the truth... I guess this is one
of those cases.
> We've rewritten access control and how we handle ambiguities (we've
> formalized disambiguation in our grammar, previously we had some awful
> hacks that failed often enough to throw the code out.)
> Other than that, we haven't really rewritten anything. We've just
> fixing bugs and implementing new features (and cleaning up some old
> in the process.)
> We have been more aggressive w/ "breaking" changes to become more
> conforming, but in general it's pretty easy to port your code to the
> compiler because the "breaks" we've made have been carefully chosen
> the diagnostics are usually helpful.
I was never worried that porting would be a big problem, but I can see
how my aside about a "rewrite" might have caused that concern. Again, my
> Second, we are getting close to finishing up the work we have planned
> for 7.1. That doesn't mean we'll be shipping as soon as we'd like.
> are part of a much bigger product, so our schedule doesn't always
> the shipping schedule of the whole product.
That's about where I thought things stood.
It wouldn't hurt at all, I'm sure, to have a feature complete 7.1 in
testing for many months before the whole Visual Studio product finally
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk