From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-14 06:23:55
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> That sounds like what I did for version 1.32.
> Is it equivalent to what you did, or does it just sound reminiscent?
>> I considered a very ugly hack.
>> I don't think I was the only person that felt this way. I resolved
>> to fix it in the next version - and here we are. oh well.
> Surely you don't think the recommendation I'm suggesting for
> conforming compilers is an ugly hack?
> IMO it doesn't matter much how ugly the portable-to-broken-compilers
> workaround is, as long as it's legit for the conforming ones and
> doesn't induce maintenance problems.
So do you have anything to say about this?
I hate to be a pest, but I've sunk so much time into getting these
issues remedied that I'm unwilling to have the issue evaporate into
the past without getting addressed.
-- 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