Subject: Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-13 08:21:46
On 12 October 2013 14:16, Stephen Kelly <steveire_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 11:52 PM, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
>>> > 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 :-)
> Robert, we've been around this roundabout before. Please don't take us
> around it again.
Did you mean to link to that thread? Because I think Peter's point was valid.
Cleaner code is nice, but if it risks breaking something, it's more
trouble than it's worth. Since much of boost is only lightly
maintained, or not maintained at all, stability is the way we avoid
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk