Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 08:48:57

Brian Allison <brian_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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
> 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.

But how would it change anything? We don't "guarantee" anything
today, and I'm pretty sure we won't guarantee anything a year from now

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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