Boost logo

Boost :

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.
> ^
> "it?"
>> 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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at