Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Removing support for old compilers: do we have aconsensus yet?
From: Adder (adder.thief_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-29 20:28:07
> I am in favor of removing support for compilers that don't support partial
> specialization, partial ordering and void returns, notably MSVC 6.0/7.0.
For as little as my opinion may count, I would like to say that I
strongly believe that hard-coding removal of support even for msvc-6
is wrong. If half of Boost or all of Boost does not work, then we can
just let half of Boost or all of Boost not work ! No extra work for
Maybe there are people out there using it and not reading this list.
Maybe there are people who just irationally wish to use that compiler
as I (apparently irationally) wish to use CodeGear's XE5 2 GB-download
6-GB installed size 1 hour-install made-in-2013-but-buggy-as-in-1998
2-or-3-or-4-times-faster-than-msvc-now-beat-that compiler. For it is
written: "Thou shall love thy compiler.".
> I wonder however how this should be done. Just removing the macro
> definitions from the config compiler headers is not enough because people
> can in principle use their own configs. Might it perhaps be better to leave
> the compiler headers intact and just warn/#error in suffix.hpp when an
> unsupported macro is set?
I would like to kindly ask whether it is possible to define a (new)
and in a single new unsupported_compiler.hpp file (perhaps included by
e.g. suffix.hpp => included by every file)...
... issue a warning message, an error message or a congratulation
message based upon the new symbol.
I am estimating that this might please everyone who wishes to see the
"old" compilers failing every single library and also everyone who
wishes to easily remove the hardcoded failure and still work with
up-to-date Boost code (in order to drive themselves mad, if that is
the desire of their hearts).
Anyway, thank you ! (-:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk