From: Kim Barrett (kab_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-03 14:32:38
At 7:47 AM -0700 5/3/06, Robert Ramey wrote:
>David Abrahams wrote:
> > You have two choices about how I'll handle backward compatibility:
>> 1. Require that all user-written archive headers be updated with the
>> next release of this library
>> 2. Leave enough of the old mechanism in place so that existing code
>> will still work as long as it follows the header ordering rule with
>> respect to export.hpp
>Either of the above would be just fine as far as I'm concerned. Go
>for whichever is easiest. From the mail on the user's list I don't think
>that many users actually create archives or derivations of existing ones.
>And adding a macro to an archive description is very small burden
>which occurs once per archive class - almost never. A small price
>to pay to eliminate the header order questions that the come up
>all the time.
Speaking as one of those rare users who is creating or deriving from
existing archives (the latter presently), we're comfortable with option 1,
even though it is not backward compatible.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk