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

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
Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden]
Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ,
ENGLAND Tel: [phone]