Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gary Powell (powellg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-25 16:16:31

Dave A. Greene wrote:
As I understand it, a not-explicitly-stated goal of the Boost
process is to identify core language issues and provide concrete
examples of how those issues cause real problems. With that in
mind, I don't really think it's fair to penalize a library because
it exposes weaknesses in the language. I think that's a positive
My understanding is that its also fair to point out the weakness in compiler
technology as well. With the caveat that doing so unnecessarily is unfair,
and that if alternative implementations being equal, supporting broken
compilers is to be strived for. A clean implementation using the language as
it was designed, is to be preferred over a hacked version. To that end,
duplicate source files for a given library can exist, clean "pure","ideal",
and whatever it takes to make it work. Especially since there exists a
"free" compiler which is pretty close to having the whole language parsable.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at