Subject: Re: [boost] [filesystem] temp_directory_path() behavior on Windows
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-02-16 22:44:17
On 17 Feb 2015 at 0:56, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
> [Niall Douglas]
> > what's the point of keeping static libs?
> Redist unnecessary, single executable, immunity to DLL replacement
> mischief (consider antivirus products).
Have the problems with mixing binaries compiled against the DLL with
others compiled against the static lib been fixed in the new
My big problem with the static libs was always that some selfish
vendor would use the static libs and balls everything up for everyone
else in the same process space. This is why I'd really like the
static libs to permanently go away.
OTOH, if those interop problems have been fixed, I might switch to
the static libs myself.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk