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

From: Brian Allison (brian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 08:37:16

   I  haved *no* idea what happened to the formatting of my prior e-mail.
   First - and hopefully last - time I've ever seen it.
   David Abrahams wrote:

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

David Abrahams wrote:

"Reece Dunn" [2]<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?

The first would mean that Boost guarantees support for the specified
compiler/version.

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
   inflamation.
   Brian

References

   1. mailto:msclrhd_at_[hidden]
   2. mailto:msclrhd_at_[hidden]