Re: [boost] New dependency report

Subject: Re: [boost] New dependency report
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-07 14:24:49

On 7 June 2014 13:19, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 6/7/2014 5:23 AM, Daniel James wrote:
>>
>> On 7 June 2014 05:47, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> So,
>> you're arguing for changes I reverted, and making clear that I
>> reverted them. That does suggest that this what you're writing has a
>> lot to do with my objections to them. If it didn't, why mention me
>> twice?
>
>
> I just mentioned what factually occurred.

But you choose what to mention. You left out why I reverted the
changes, and that I'd said they would be more appropriate in the
future, which makes it look like I was blocking them indefinitely.

>> The implication of your mail is that the changes were reverted
>> in order to keep support for compilers such as Visual C++ 7.0, which
>> is not true.
>
>
> You are reading into my current replies to John Maddock and Peter Dimov
> things which are not there and then accusing me of not replying "to what I
> wrote rather than what you imagined I wrote". Please do not do that.

I'm sorry about that line, it would have made more sense if I'd
included the reply to your original inaccurate description of what
happened, which is what annoyed me. I should have edited more
carefully before sending.