Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-06 07:58:30
On 07/06/17 02:18, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> My impression though, based on observing earlier discussions, is that
> tying the address model issue to the architecture issue is a very
> effective way to stall progress and ultimately do nothing.
Why? I think, breaking the world twice (first by adding address-model to
the names, then by adding architecture) is worse than breaking it once
(by adding both). There's little difference from the implementation
point (I think) and I don't remember there being opposition to adding
architecture as well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk