From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-05 13:30:38
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I do not agree it's proper way looking at that. IMO "deprecation"
> has nothing to do with library itself. What it has to do with is
> what you test a library on.
Sorry, you've all got it wrong :)
Deprecation indicates an intention to stop supporting a particular
construct or usage, sometime in the future. Of course, the
unavailability of testing resources for a compiler might be one reason
to deprecate the use of a compiler with a particular library, but
there could be others. And compiler/library combinations aren't all
that can be deprecated. We can deprecate parts of library interfaces,
specific headers, etc.
Deprecation is not a dead end. It is a good thing, because it allows
us to break code in the service of better libraries, by giving users
fair warning. Whether Boost as a whole can deprecate the use of a
given compiler is another matter.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk