Boost logo

Boost :

From: Samuel Krempp (krempp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-27 18:05:21

On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 13:58, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
> [Could make config testing interesting if 0x0563 has fixes not present
> in the Kylix release, 0x0570]

I guess it's the first time, thanks to Borland's 2 branches (kylix /
Borland C++ Builder) using intertwined version numbers, that one
compiler's version number does not simply follow chronological order
(thus, presumably, increasing standard conformance)
The compiler-specific non-conformance workarounds with version tracking
nightmare is getting an extra bit of insanity..

BTW, I think kylix, alias __BORLANDC__ = 0x570, was already behind BCB
0x562 on some issues, was it not ?


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