From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-02 10:21:34
At 07:45 2005-11-02, you wrote:
>On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Stefan Slapeta wrote:
> > Jeff Garland wrote:
> >> In date-time this is easy b/c all these calls are in about 20
> >> lines of code.
> >> This solution silences both library and user build -- allowing the
> >> user to
> >> decide on whether they want the warnings for their own code.
> > [...]
> > I think this is a nice solution but I'm not sure whether 1.33.1
> > could be
> > reopened for these changes which would affect many header files in
> > boost.
>1.33.1 cannot be reopened for these changes. We need to answer this
>with either the sledgehammer approach (defining
>_SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE in a config header) or with some documentation.
at the risk of being told to "shut up and don't 'dis' people in the
community that are "promoting C++" (whatever the heck THAT means)", I
think Microsoft has messed up on this one. Their "secure"
replacements rely on the programmer adding a parameter to give them
some "lengths" for destinations.
and be done with it. _Maybe_ it's nice for new code, but for people
upgrading old code it's strictly a PITA and in my opinion adds
_nothing_ to the sarfety of a program.
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk