From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-16 16:25:02
on Tue Oct 16 2007, "Felipe Magno de Almeida" <felipe.m.almeida-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/16/07, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> on Mon Oct 08 2007, "Felipe Magno de Almeida" <felipe.m.almeida-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I believe we should drop Release criteria compilers concept, and have
>> > recommended compilers. Each library mantainer would then choose to
>> > mantain or not a particular compiler and document all the compilers he
>> > actively mantains.
>> > If a new library comes for review which can just run on some set of
>> > compilers, excluding maybe two release compilers, should we not accept
>> > it?
>> Maybe only conditionally on support of those compilers. If we choose
>> the release criteria platforms properly, they shouldn't present
>> serious portability problems for any library.
> What if the library isn't suppose to work on those? It may be useful
Sure, but usefulness is not the only criteria we use to decide that a
library is ready to be part of a Boost release. A library could even
be badly broken on all platforms and still useful.
Let's stop dealing in abstracts. Are there any Boost libraries that
would have problems passing all tests (except those like the native
typeof tests that use nonstandard features) cleanly on all the
proposed release platforms?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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