From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-05 18:49:08
Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
> I'd suggested such move (under name Boost 2.0) some time ago:
> In discussion I got convinced this is huge undertaking, not feasible
> even in long term.
That was my understanding too - more work than people wanted to do.
However, I would certainly drop my request to maintain Borland support
if that was the goal.
> #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x???))
> is used in libraries I had chance to look at.
> I hope at least this works.
Not all workarounds are using BOOST_TESTED_AT, but checking <=0x564 as
the last released compiler (or 0x570 for Kylix). Many of those still
need updating for the new compiler :?(
Fortunately, most workarounds ARE using BOOST_TESTED_AT, so it is just
a matter of seeing how many are still needed.
> It may be interesting to compare number of errors
> with existing workarounds and without them, whether
> something in front-end actually got better.
Front end is definitely better, but maybe not in ways that show up in
Boost tests. As often commented, Boost tests are not an ISO
conformance test, just one heck of a workout ;?) Many of the
improvements do not show up, or simply open up the path to the next
Note that Borland admit this compiler is not ready for prime-time yet,
and are already planning a further update around the end of the year
(so quite soon!) Will see how much more that buys us, but I don't
think we will see significant improvements until the next product cycle
Still has problems with integral constants.
Still can't do SFINAE.
still has problems with template templates and other constructs it
seems to support at first glance.
And still no support for TR1 function :(
On the bright side, now shipping Dinkumware as the standard library - 3
different vendors for the last 3 versions! (Rogue Wave, STLport, now