Subject: Re: [boost] Use of boost in safety critical work
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-06 09:55:09
> - source code is available but some of them are very hard to
> understand. Part of this is due to the support of broken compilers, but
> there is also use of non obvious template or preprocessor magic. Also
> there is no consistent code style.
Yes, I'd like to see more removal of ancient compiler support. We've
discussed that a bit, for exactly the reason that it's easier to reason
about and maintain the code:
and I managed to update some stuff, but consensus wasn't fully reached
and I think Daniel reverted some of my changes.
And ultimately, in Boost, compiler support is an individual library
It's unfortunate I think.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk