From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-04 16:53:54
David Abrahams wrote:
>"Reece Dunn" <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >>CW 7+. I think supporting CW6 should be declared beyond our scope,
> >>but I guess you're using it.
> > Thanks. CW6 has some issues with iterator adaptors
> > (boost::reverse_iterator) but as I am relatively new to the CW tools
> > I haven't had the chance to sort though this, although since CW6 is
> > an old compiler I'm not too worried about this.
>I don't understand; now it sounds like you don't care too much about
>the old version -- or is it reverse_iterator that you don't care
I am using CW6 because I don't currently own a later version. I care about
CW6 in as much as it allows me to test my libraries using CodeWarrior (I
know problems may arise on later versions).
I am assuming most people have at least CW7 with most on CW8+, like you said
in a previous post, therefore the Boost libraries will be dropping support
CW6 like they are doing for VC6 (I know it is slightly different with VC6
WRT standards conformance, but the same principle applies).
I will post the problem to the Boost mailing list. boost::reverse_iterator
is a very useful class, especially for non-conformant compilers, do I do
care about it!
> >>You realize they're up to 9, now?
> > I am aware of this. But supporting many compilers is expensive
> > business!
>As is supporting old ones. Why not upgrade?
I will, but I can't afford it at the moment.
> > I guess that's what a compile farm is for :).
>Or a compiler graveyard ;->
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk