Re: [Boost-users] RTTI for VC 6

From: Samuel (samuel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-15 07:31:48

Note that the original response was that I should post my comments to the
other forum yet the Boost web site says that this forum is one of two forums
to post bugs and suggestions in.

Another response indicated that my suggestion is not possible. I did not say
that it is possible, but I doubt that it can be said that it definitely is
not possible.

You are definitely being unreasonable about saying that I  "dumps on the
warning messages". Try to show us where I did that; you can't.

When you say "why hasn't the OP updated??" you ask that as if you don't
really want to know the answer. I get the impression that whatever I say,
you will still insist that I am being unreasonable.

Is that the official position? Is it likely that support of VC 6 will be
dropped? If that is not true, then the comments below that are critical of
me and indicating that support should be expected to be stopped seems
unreasonable to me.

Again, look to see where I dumped on the warning messages. You can't find
that and therefore you need to state that it is incorrect to say I did.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost-users_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] RTTI for VC 6

> you're being unreasonable.
> some guy came in here with a KNOWN poor and out of date compiler and dumps
> on the warning messages he gets and implies that the folks a boost
> should/could do something about it (Microsoft HAS done something about it,
> they're issued TWO releases since then.....why hasn't the OP updated??)
> .
> I'm on record here as saying we should save the world a fortune in time
and
> quit supporting such a poor compiler. (now THAT is flame bait, and I don't
> give a <insert favorite expletive>.... Microsoft VC++6.0 is NOT a
> reasonable compiler..... within months of it's release, the ISO standard
> was voted (of course they didn't conform, I believe that any rational
> person looking at ALL the behavior of Microsoft back in 1997-1998 can ONLY
> come to the conclusion that they were trying to "kill" C++).  Microsoft
> STILL has NOT updated the STL that they ship with VC++6.0...do you want me
> to go on?)
>
> In my opinion, the only reason that boost hasn't officially told everyone
> that VC++6.0 is no longer supported is because Dave Abrahams apparently
has
> a customer that "cannot update".  It costs a small fortune to try to make
> everything work with VC++6.0 and it is NOT worth the effort).