From: Albert Chin (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-27 11:36:59
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 08:11:21AM +0400, Simon Atanasyan wrote:
> Albert Chin wrote:
> > Is stlport4 "better" than Cstd?
> Cstd is an old implementation. It does not conforms to standard.
> And it will never conforms because we (Sun) need to maintains
> binary compatibility with old releases. Stlport is closer to
> standard and contains some features necessary for Boost.
Doesn't using stlport4 require an installation of the Sun C++ compiler
installed for access to libstlport.so?
-- albert chin (china_at_[hidden])
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk