Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compilerrequirements.
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-04 12:48:11
> Do you have an opinion on the original change? The only contentious part
> of it seems to be dropping Visual C++ 7.0.
Well I'm sort of sitting on the fence ;-)
I suspect from a purely practical perspective, few libraries are still
compatible with that compiler, so I'm inclined to agree we might as well
drop support. Of course that opens a whole can of worms, because if we
agreed to that then there's a whole slew of config macros (and associated
workarounds) that can be removed.
So I'm inclined to agree to whatever you want ;-) But perhaps more to the
point we should be doing whatever our users want - so perhaps it would be
better to open up a discussion on boost-users on which compilers we can drop
and work from there. If I have a criticism of this current suggestion it's
that the motivation is the wrong way around - in principle we shouldn't be
dropping support for something just because it make modularization easier,
even if in the end, dropping support for that feature may well be the right
thing to do.
Nit pickingly yours, John.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk