Re: [boost] on boost version numbers

From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 14:15:18

On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:21 PM, Martin Wille wrote:
> I agree, the use of the "1." is questionable. However, we could reserve
> 2.x.y for a version of Boost that does not contain any workarounds for
> ancient, non-conforming compilers, or for a similar clean-cut scenario.

I used to think that some day we would get a Boost 2.x that would toss 
away all of the silly workarounds, but I don't suspect it will ever 
happen. As compilers drop off the face of the planet, so will their 
workarounds, but it won't be a big event.

"Wow, Boost 2.0, they got rid of junk from 15-year-old compilers!"

:)

        Doug