From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-11 07:25:07
"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Who will benefit of this all:
> - library writers who do not want to support old
> systems (less pressure on them) may spend more time
> with design. This gets more important if more
> powerfull/complex libraries will emerge.
All this for less pressure on a few authors? These authors may simply
refuse to support older compilers today.
> - users with new compilers (they can be more sure
> the library remains maintainable and may even be able
> to understand its inner, too). Their existing code
> using Boost should compile without changes.
That sounds like a break-even to me.
> - compiler vendors will be able catch more errors.
> - standard comittee may be more interested in clean
I doubt it. Historically, the committee isn't particularly interested
in our implementations, only in our interfaces.
> - if/when the world moves to C++0x it will be easier
> to move Boost there (this is beyond horizont of this
> idea though).
Sorry, but I just don't see what problem this is solving. The
proposal is a huge undertaking, today or next year, and I don't see
any benefits that would make it worth the trouble. Furthermore,
compilers will always be broken and require workarounds here and
there; you won't be able to keep them from creeping in, and I don't
think it's desirable to. Part of the point of Boost is to have code
that's usable in the real world.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk