From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-31 09:47:15
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:36:08 +0000 (UTC), AlisdairM wrote
A couple thoughts:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
> > I understand, but that just means 1.34 will be delayed for fixes to
> > these outdated relics and new lousy compilers. We would be better
> > making a clean break now and letting folks with old compilers stick
> > with 1.33.1.
> That is harsh for Borland users.
> The new compiler was released AFTER 1.33.1, with which needs to
> update several workarounds and then config file before compiling as
> well as BCB6.
I'm ok with supporting the new Borland compiler if we get someone to
regression test it.
> I will happily assist library maintainers hunting down and
> eradicating support for older Borland compilers, so long as the most
> recent is supported (until such time that 'most recent' is
> reasonably conforming and no longer auto-deprecated when a new
> compiler is released)
I don't see the issue this way. The main problem for library authors is that
any new code changes might break the fragile workarounds that keep regression
tests working for Borland. Then a note needs to go in some documentation to
explain this feature isn't available, etc. So with every change we are
'walking on eggshells'. It's this time that I want poured into new library
>Borland is still a moving target. The IS no supported version of boost
>for the current compiler, and if support is dropped now there will
>never be one.
I don't agree. If at some future point Borland comes up with a new compiler
that is better I think we would welcome it and support it vigorously.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk