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

From: Bo Persson (bop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-05 12:15:15

"Reece Dunn" <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> skrev i meddelandet 
news:BAY101-F16FC3D58169D196846F4FDA0410_at_phx.gbl...
> Edward Diener wrote:
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>> > "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >>Martin Bonner wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>
>> >>I doubt that 7.1 would ever be dropped, as it's too close to 
>> >>conforming
>>and
>> >>VC 8 has some features that could hinder its acceptance.
>> >>
>> >>>(But VC7.0 could probably go).
>> >
>> > That sounds great to me.  Now what about Borland (wrings hands 
>> > like
>> > Snively Whiplash)?  If anything, that's harder to support than 
>> > vc6 and
>> > 7.0!
>>
>>I understand you are referring to past BCB compilers but I just want 
>>to
>>note that Borland is putting out a new release of BCB in case Boost
>>becomes interested. The product, part of the BDS 2006 suite, was
>>supposed to come out December 1 but has been delayed for 
>>approximately a
>>month, not a good sign, with the next exact date not given yet.
>>
>>Just a heads up in case no one from Boost is paying attention to 
>>this in
>>the wake of MS's much touted Visual Studio 2005 and VC 8.0.
>
> 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;

Slightly supported?  :-)

One problem with these are that there are *tons* of work around code 
in most libraries. In some cases there are definitely more fixes that 
real code.

 If the support is officially removed, so can workarounds be. This 
might make some of the code actually readable.  :-)

Bo Persson