Re: [boost] Permanently retire VC++ 6?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-05 08:18:40

Paul A Bristow wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Victor A.
>> Wagner Jr.
>> Sent: 05 December 2005 01:02
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]; boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Permanently retire VC++ 6?
>> (was:Re:Math/Quaternions compile problem in VC++6)
>>
>> and I'm all for retiring vc++6.0 support from boost (I've argued
>> this before).
>
> This is long overdue  and now that we have a reasonably compliant MSVC
> compiler that works on Windows 2000 up I can't see any excuse for not
> dropping support.  Things that this work will still work, but if not -
> tough. (I am not proposing ripping out all the #ifdefs relating the
> MSVC 6, despite the improvement in readability that might result).
>
> Should we have a straw poll of the lurkers - so that diehards can
> have their say - and then make a decision?

What do you mean by "dropping support"?

I am against dropping VC 6 regression tests in general because I want to see 
what works on it, either for not introducing a regression, or for ensuring 
compatibility where it's reasonably easy to do so.

I do not oppose dropping VC 6 and 7 from the list of "release" compilers.