Re: [Boost-users] OT: Q: W4003 with vc7 boost=1.32 in date_time lib

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-01 21:49:43

At Wednesday 2004-12-01 18:08, you wrote:

>Jeff Garland wrote:
>>.rant on
>>While I understand your point, I think we should push for reform in Redmond.
>
><rant snipped>
>
>Microsoft is now a much better citizen than it was when it first 
>introduced the min/max macros into their platform headers. That wouldn't 
>fly at MS these days. But, having worked there, I know why they would 
>strongly resist taking the macros out. It's a breaking change, and users 
>have a "fix" -- #define NOMINMAX. (The fact that there is at least one 
>platform header that depends on them is clearly a bug.) What I'm trying to 
>say is, Redmond has already reformed quite a bit -- the revolution is 
>over, we're just left coping with its aftermath.

yeah, it's why they still haven't fixed the CRTMEMDEBUG stuff 
either.  because you can define the stuff yourself.  I tried to explain to 
the twit on the phone that what is in there now is broken, and cannot work, 
changing it canNOT possibly break anything...but they're still so dense 
that they won't fix it.

oh, and   #define NOMINMAX   isn't a "fix".  It's a workaround

>--
>Eric Niebler
>Boost Consulting
>www.boost-consulting.com
>_______________________________________________
>Boost-users mailing list
>Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"