From: Powell, Gary (powellg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-02 11:34:44
Dave Held >I wouldn't call it "mere vapor". Rather, I'd call it "a challenge to port".
Dave Held >So far, gcc 3.3 is the only compiler that passes all the tests. If I could
Dave Held >get it compile on at least two other compilers, I would submit it for
Dave Held >review. But it doesn't seem that a library that only works on one
Dave Held >compiler meets the usual goals of Boost.
Dave Held >Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Ok, you're wrong, There is no requirement that a boost library run on any compiler merely that it use standard C++. But it would fail all of the tests and not be used! But we have seen at least one major compiler vendor use boost as a test suite, so inclusion into boost can speed up the compiler fixes.
Dave Held >Of course, I don't have that many compilers to try, either.
Dave Held >Maybe if I had access to some better compilers, I would get farther.
Well the members of boost have access to lot of compilers, so you would get instant feedback. One of the major advantages of boost. Plus as Dave A. mentions there is a lot of porting expertise among the members. But I understand the need to not build the initial design by committee, you could end up with another "string" class interface!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk