From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-05 11:23:06
"Reece Dunn" <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> writes:
> It may be useful to have 3 levels of support:
> * officially supported (e.g. CodeWarrior 9.x, gcc, VC8) - compilers that
> Boost is expected to work with;
> * not officially supported (e.g. VC6, BCB) - some libraries may work, but
> there is no requirement to support these compilers;
Sounds good, but I'd like to know, as a practical matter, what the
difference between these two is. Less pressure on developers to
support the 2nd category?
> * not supported (e.g. OpenWatcom) - these haven't been tested for and do
> not have any Boost.Config/workaround magic to support them.
> It may also be useful to make Boost.Config issue a warning that compilers
> like BCB and VC6 are not officially supported if they are removed from the
> supported list.
<shiver> Wouldn't people hate us for adding diagnostics?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk