Re: [boost] Re: int_const_guidelines out of date?

From: Daniel Wallin (dalwan01_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-26 04:50:08

Markus Werle wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> 
>>Markus Werle <numerical.simulation_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's *much* harder to get
>>>>Borland to jump through many template hoops correctly than it is vc6.
>>>>That's ameliorated somewhat by MPL, but not even all of MPL supports
>>>>Borland IIUC (lambda exprs).
>>>
>>>But then: why support it anyway?
>>
>>I'm not saying you should (although IMO there are obvious 
>>reasons to do so, which of course may not outweigh the 
>>costs for you)
> 
> [snip]
> 
> In other words: All EDG-based compilers and gcc-3.4 (in a few weeks)
> do or will support the stuff we need. So at least 4 compilers
> (Intel C++, Comeau, NEC and gcc) support all this without 
> macros. This means the code can be compiled on 90% of all computer  platforms.
> 
> I am really concerned about this.
> Should I still use those macros - and precisely why? 

There are lots of people who are still using old compilers. VC6/VC7 and
even really old GCC versions, like 2.95.x. For example, my university
has GCC 3.1. It might be true that there are compilers available that
can compile your code on 90% of all computer platforms. However, I doubt
that 90% of all C++ developers can use those compilers in their daily
work.

-- 
Daniel Wallin