From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-03 18:12:09
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:31:42 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote
> At 10:20 AM 10/3/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
> >I've said it before, but I always found the checking to be much
> more >of a hindrance than a help.
> So presumably you would be in favor of changing the default to "no_check"?
I'll just chime in since we're voting ;-) As an early proponent, and still a
user of the portable option, I think either native or no-check is fine as the
default. I don't have enough code to really even care about the backward
compatibility macro -- it's trivial enough to switch over...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk