From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-04 11:28:50
John Maddock wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>>> On my own system I made the following change perhaps I can just
>>> check it in?
> I've no objections: but the impression I get is that lib is so broken
> with that old compliler that it's a lost cause: none of the tests
> pass anyway :-(
It seems that the this compiler is too far behind the test library
to be tested. The only reason I did kept this up was that it was
easy for me to do once I had it setup up. But now its too much
so I'll drop it from my local testing - that will "fix" the problem.
While we're on the subject - and I know I've mentioned this before -
its really bugs me to have the message "compiler xxx - deprecated"
show up from the config header. It seems to me that this is something
that has to be determined on a library by library basis. Some very
simple libraries - e.g. static_assert can just as well remain compatible
forever whereas others e.g. lambda will always depend on the latest
greatest features. The idea of putting this reality. It also encourages
the idea that Boost is a "tightly coupled" group of libraries - an idea
that will have to de-emphasized if Boost wants to keep growing.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk