Re: [boost] RE: Re: Re: Re: is_class

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-16 09:08:32

Daniel Frey <d.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:58:42 +0100, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>
>> Daniel Frey wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Anyway, I would understand your frustration if you've proposed a drop-in
>> replacement for the current 'is_class' implementation that  passes all
>> the current tests and is better, in at least one way, than what we have
>> now - and it was ignored. But that's not what happened, is it? If you
>
> I can't provide a drop-in replacement. I don't have all the compilers
> needed. 

<snip>

> My "vision" is to do it step-by-step and with the help from others. I
> neither have the time nor the amount of compilers needed to do everything
> on my own and in one big step. Or are you suggesting that boost can only
> be improved by people that have access to all compilers that boost
> supports? Than I guess you rule out most of the boosters immediately.

I think this is a specious argument.  It's easy enough to avoid
breaking an implementation by using #ifdefs to arrange that your
changes only affect a range of compilers you've tested it against.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com