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

From: Brian Allison (brian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 09:36:59

   David Abrahams wrote:

Brian Allison [1]<brian_at_[hidden]> writes:

   David Abrahams wrote:

"Reece Dunn" [1][2]<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.

   I  wasn't  suggesting  any  guarantees be put forth; that's why I used
   quotes  around 'guaranteed'. Perhaps it would have been less imprecise
   if I had said:
      If  only  highly  conformant  compilers  were in the 1st category -
   presuming  such a category had sufficient usefulness to the developers
   to  warrant  the  concept  of categorization - then the users of Boost
   could  be  less  likely  to miss the fact that the only obligation the
   developers  assigned  to  themselves was attempting to write compliant
   code which a conforming compiler would therefore accept.
     Then the developers could concentrate on the expressing the thoughts
   into  code  instead  of concerning themselves to any great degree with
   non-conformant platforms.
     Which would then make it more obvious to the non-developers that the
   burden  of  non-conformant compilers is intrinsically on the shoulders
   of those who choose the non-conformant compilers.
      Sorry  if  that's  too  verbose, I'm under significant workload and
   didn't  take  much  time on the explanation. Also, I didn't think that
   the  most  concise  message  was  the  empty  set  - aplogies if I was
   mistaken.
   Brian

References

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