Boost logo

Boost :

From: Brian Allison (brian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 07:45:12

   David Abrahams wrote:

"Reece Dunn" [1]<msclrhd_at_[hidden]> writes:

David Abrahams wrote:

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?

The first would mean that Boost guarantees support for the specified

What does that mean? Every developer is obligated to make his library
work on that compiler? That would be unprecedented (though not out of
the question).

   If only highly conformant compilers were on the list of 'guaranteed'
   compilers, then the obligation could be restated that the developers
   write conformant code and that the compilers be at least X conformant.
   Then the developers can concentrate not on catering to a broken
   compiler, and those who insist on using such compilers can bear the
   brunt of the brokenness - instead of the developers who are donating
   their time and efforts to help others through their work.
   Just one lurker's opinion - hopefully one for illumination and not


   1. mailto:msclrhd_at_[hidden]

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at