Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-04 06:26:19
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 12:20 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 12:00 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
> > Daniel James skrev 2013-08-04 10:57:
> > > On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 10:22 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What do you think about increasing the compiler requirement much more,
> > >> as I wrote in another mail?
> > >
> > > I'd say no, unless you've got a very good reason. Compiler support
> > > should be an individual library maintainers decision.
> > >
> > Should it? If one library can be dependent on 35 others (boost::any?) it
> > sure seems like an agreed upon base line could be useful.
> That's an extra responsibility that the maintainer of boost::any takes
> on. That's surely well understood by now.
Sorry, I confused dependents and dependencies there. The maintainer of
Any can choose its dependencies. Btw. how did you get 35 for boost::any?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk