From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-07 09:43:07
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> > I like it.
> I don't (yet). Why do we need yet another macro which means "turn off
> the workarounds?" Would BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG then be obsolete?
I think that the idea is that BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG applies only to unknown
compiler versions, and BOOST_DISABLE_WORKAROUNDS (do we need separate
compiler/library macros?) would be applied unconditionally, regardless of
whether the compiler has known defects.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk