Boost logo

Boost :

From: Martin Bonner (martin.bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-05 08:28:42

----Original Message----
From: Peter Dimov [mailto:pdimov_at_[hidden]]
Sent: 05 December 2005 13:19
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Permanently retire VC++ 6?

> 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"?

Excellent question.
> 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 agree with this.

> I do not oppose dropping VC 6 and 7 from the list of "release"
> compilers.
I think it is too soon to drop VC 7.1 from the list of "release" compilers.
(But VC7.0 could probably go).

Martin Bonner
Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ,
ENGLAND Tel: +44 (0)1223 441434

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