From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-05 10:58:00
Do we need to do anything special?
Boost policy is not to require compatibility with non-conforming compilers
and testing markup can be used to indicate which libraries should not
be tested with specific compilers.
Maybe the only thing necessary is to make this information a little
more visible through the web site so we have a table indicating
which libraries support which compilers. (I'm sure its already
in there somewhere - it would just have to be made a little
If we try to do anything else like agree which should be supported
and which not we'll end up in interminable round of discussions
which will never be totally satisfactory. Already we have spirit
which is not supported on some platforms. This works well.
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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk