Subject: Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-10 17:52:02
Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:
> Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
> > 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.
Cleaner, more readable code (hey, I won't be around forever :-) let's
make life easier for maintainers to come.) When deleting non-macro-based
contortions such as the one I described before, we get also potentially
faster compile times.
JoaquÃn M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk