From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-07 22:19:46
Nicola Musatti <Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Deprecating a platform boost-wide, rather than on a per-library basis,
>> seems the best balance to me. I know which Boost version is stable and
>> tested, I can rely on most libraries in that version, and library
>> authors understand what is expected (but not required) of them. The
>> all important recovery-action for the user is simple - install the
>> version of Boost pointed at by the deprecation message.
> I don't agree. This would work if all the library authors supported the
> same set of compilers. As this is not the case there is no single
> version of Boost that the deprecation message can reasonably refer to.
> The real solution for this problem is something that Boost will have to
> face sooner or later and that is breaking the distribution into a set of
> more manageable elements.
No, really, the solution is for Borland to fix their compiler, or for
market pressure to drive everyone to drop it. Let's keep things in
-- 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