Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-14 06:57:23

On 13 October 2013 19:31, Stephen Kelly <steveire_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 10/13/2013 02:21 PM, Daniel James wrote:
>> 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 :-)
>>> Exactly.
>>> 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.
> Peter? Don't you mean Robert?

You linked to a discussion with Peter Dimov.

>> 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
>> breaking things.
> The change under discussion seems to be to a library which is
> maintained. By Joaquin.

You have made other changes.

> My changes amount to removal of dead code (once the macro I'm processing
> is no-longer defined). That doesn't require knowledge of the library in
> question, but just basic knowledge of how the preprocessor works. That's
> very basic. I've made some typos, and I'm glad of more reviews.

Well not quite, sometimes there are subtle issues involved, such as
the one Peter mentioned about compilers that pretend to be Visual C++.
The problem is that a lot of these changes aren't getting reviewed.
Most of the responses have been about things which cause compile
failures on recent compilers. That isn't going to catch everything.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at