From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-13 10:53:48
> David Bergman wrote:
> >Patrick wrote:
> > > > Surprised you didn't try to port it to MC++. It might have
> > > been easier.
> > >
> > > But much less portable. With C#, people at least have a few
> > > compiler and runtime options. Beyond that, C#-based
> assemblies can
> > > actually be used on multiple platforms unlike those compiled from
> > > MC++.
> >Hmm, I do not quite understand that (having worked extensively with
> >MC++ and C#)
> >Is not MSVC 7.1 (part of the VS.NET 2003 for you MS lovers
> out there)
> >capable of producing verifiable MSIL using C++? So, what would the
> >obstacles be on different platforms (such as Mono and .NET Compact
> In order to get MS VC 7.0 or 7.1 to produce MSIL output, you
> need to tell the compiler that the code is "managed" (using
> the -clr option). This is what is meant by MC++. Otherwise,
> you have a C++ project.
Yes, that is quite obvious. But, under the hypthesis that we actually do use
that compiler switch, and VC 7.1, what exactly are those .NET platform
The reason I ask is not only because I would be interested in an as complete
as possible BGL variant for my .NET projects, but also because I am in the
midst of porting a lot of C++ code to .NET, containing (of course!!) Boost
uses, and am curious what possible pitfalls might be for us .NET-forced
Maybe we should star a new group: boost-dot-net?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk