Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] New Header Structure [was Re: Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:]
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-04 11:50:24
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
> Robert, you cannot claim that our stragegy was a failure just because
> of that account!
I suppose your right. Since, I didn't know what you were trying to
accomplish - and still don't, I guess I can't really say whether or
not your strategy is/was a failure. Remember all I wanted to do
was to tweak a couple of files to avoid a warning which
included the word "deprecated" in it and permit one more
compiler to build the serialization library.
> If you can't provide a minimal test case, then what
> you are saying is unfounded.
LOL - well I didn't make up the scenario I described. So I can't
agree it's unfounded. Maybe it would be more accurate to say what
I'm saying is "not reproducible" or "unverified" or "unproved".
And all I'm saying is that your nomenclature and practices
regarding #include, versioning, deprecation, etc. create a lot
of confusion and extra work - at least for me. This thread
seems to indicate I'm not alone in this. Feel free to address
or ignore this complaint as you see fit.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk