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

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
either.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com