From: Russell Hind (rhind_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-11 12:09:45
Robert Geiman wrote:
> The problem I have is, if leaving the decision of what compilers to
> support up to the library author results in one Boost library that works
> with compiler A and B, but not C, while others work with compiler A and
> C, but not B. It can be very confusing to someone who's looking at
> using Boost and they want to know if Boost supports their compiler.
> There REALLY should be a standard for this. Or is there and I'm missing
Spirit has already made bcc32 obsolete in boost-1.31 so I've stuck with
1.30.2. I know I can get spirit elsewhere and not use the boost
version, but I like the fact that I have a single external library to
keep track of the version. I am happy with boost-1.30.2 but as one
library has already dropped support for my compiler, I'll probably stick
with 1.30.2 until Borland's new compiler comes out or I move to a
different compiler (which definitely won't happen in the near future).
As I've said before, I'm happy for support for this compiler to stop
because once one library that did work doesn't new versions of boost can
suddenly become useless if your current work depends on that library.
The replies to this were leave it up to the individual library
maintainers. This is fine, but some of them may be going through much
effort to support an old compiler the other maintainers have decided to
drop, consequently users of that compiler may not move to newer versions
of boost because parts they rely on nolonger function.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk