RE: [boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-22 08:10:08

Oops,

I was about to suggest that Boost skip support for both GCC, Intel and
VC++ entirely, and mainly focus on the Borland compiler running on
Windows 98. I had better withdraw that suggestion then...

/David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
> 
> 
> Jarl Friis <jarl_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> >> All true.  Unfortunately, 2.96 was released by RedHat with one 
> >> popular version of Linux, which makes it (in many peoples' 
> eyes) an 
> >> important compiler to support anyway.
> >
> > I will in line with the announcement suggest that any 
> support needed 
> > for or related to this particular gcc version should be 
> redirected to 
> > the supplier of the compiler (i.e. redhat).
> 
> That's a very nice way to avoid extra work for Boost library 
> developers which they shouldn't have to do in the first 
> place, but since RedHat isn't actually going to do anything 
> for users, leaves them in the cold.
> 
> I am noticing a theme in your postings today: you seem 
> remarkably unsympathetic to anyone who hasn't made what you 
> consider to be the "right" choice of software systems.  At 
> Boost we *generally* try not to hold these kinds of missteps 
> against our users, because we're more interested in seeing 
> our software widely used than in avoiding the hassles of 
> platform dependencies; I don't think you're going to change 
> that culture with a few postings (at least I hope not)!
> 
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/bo> ost
>