Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION

Subject: Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-10 16:28:19

Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
> 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.

But you wouldn't want to go back and make adjustments in the
current code just to make it non-functional with older compilers,
would you?  What is the return on THAT investment.  Wouldn't
it be best to just ignore these macros going forward?

RObert Ramey

>
> Joaquín M López Muñoz
> Telefónica Digital
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost