Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION

Subject: Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-10 14:39:32

Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:

> 
> Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
> > Stephen Kelly <steveire <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> On 10/10/2013 07:48 AM, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
> >>> Stephen Kelly <steveire <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/09/2013 12:39 AM, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
> >>>>> I understand there's been some discussion about dropping support
> >>>>> for compliers with BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
> >>>>> defined. Has some final decision been made about this?
> > [...]
> > In my case, it's not so much about removing #ifdefs as about
> > eliminating workarounds like this:
> >
> > Instead of
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I'm forced to write
> >
> > [...]
> 
> Why are you  forced to write this? You are not forced to write code 
> compatible with older compilers.  It's only an option.  Just write
> the code you want and note that your library is not compatible with
> certain "older" compilers.  Combatibility with non-standard C++ has
> never been a boost requirement and this is explicitly stated somewhere
> on the boost website.

I didn't express myself clearly. Of course noone forces me to write
for non-compliant compilers, but when I began Boost.MultiIndex
non-compliance was the norem (remember the days of MSC++ 6.0) and
I carefully wrote all the necessary workadounds, up to a certain
point (never could make the lib work for Borland commpilers.) Now that
the situation with compilers is much better, I'm happy to drop
legacy support: I just prefer to do it in alignment with official
Boost policies about which compilers are defintely abandoned.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica Digital