From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-10 01:22:40
From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <rogeeff_at_[hidden]>
> Then Singleton (though IMO it require more work) and so on.
> Second note: I think loki boostification should include making it more
portable. Particulaly it should work under MSVC 6.5.
I'm not sure how worthwhile of a goal it is to provide compatibility for
extensively broken compilers (esp. with regards to the template mechanism in
VC6.x). Sure, it will increase use, but it also removes some incentive for
improvement. Currently, some of the MS reps are saying that Loki compiles fine
on an in-house build of VC++, and it seems that libraries (like Loki and Boost)
are driving the need for compliance (at least in some circles). I think a
better strategy is make the library granular enough that users can still use
parts of it on non-compliant compilers. You know...suck them in :) and get them
complaining to MS (and others) about the rest of it not working. To that end, I
don't think that massive hacks should be implemented to work around a lack of
partial template specialization, etc., but rather only simple workarounds for
slightly non-conforming compilers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk