From: Nicola Musatti (Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-07 17:20:15
Phil Richards wrote:
> There is something else that has to be considered: if you release
> bcbboost you don't have to worry about introducing regressions in to the
> other, supported, compilers. Your workarounds can be ones that would
> *never* be accepted as part of the main boost because of the breakages
> they would introduce. As you say, it will be much simpler to QA a
> release aimed just at this compiler.
While your line of reasoning is theoretically sound, in practice most if
not all of my workarounds have been accepted by library authors for
inclusion in 1.34 . On the other hand I do agree that workarounds meant
for much older Boost releases are much less likely to be still valid.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk