From: Sam Partington (Sam.Partington_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-12 14:15:31
> Indeed that's not very helpful. But at least - as you said - it fails
> to compile so I consider it a non-issue for the operators library.
> It's a
> VC6 problem and the users need to life with it whether or not they use
> the operators library, right?
Yup. It is six years old after all. Anyway it is in the documentation, as
well as a work-around.
> I don't think so and I wasn't suggesting that it would be a good
> idea. I think it's reasonable to have both things tied together. I
> just wanted
> to mention it and see what you think. I think that it's my job as the
> maintainer to try to break everything to see how robust it is (and
> hopefully not to frustrate anyone). As I'm new in this area, please
> correct me if I'm wrong. :)
No, not at all, I think you're doing a very good job indeed, never any harm
in taking the devils advocate.
> I think we now have had a fair amount of discussion and as long as you
> (or anyone else) don't find another problem, I'm looking forward for
> your next patch-set. :)
Attached. Hopefully not made a mess of it. :-)
PS The problem I mentioned I was having with the tests was me not thinking
properly. I compiled all the tests with an old set (1.29) of boost files by
mistake, and lo and behold it none of them passed - amazing hey! Sorry,
I'll keep my mouth shut in future.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk