But would you still be spending time on changing the code for the sake of removing MSVC6 ? +1 * -1 = -1 It might be more productive to get rid of the MSVC6 when you are changing the code anyways for another reason. So I guess it would be helpfull if boost made some sort of "vision statement" for which compilers boost are aiming to support in new development (and to a lesser extent which compilers are _not_ supportet in future, and which compilers are not aimed to get supportet but still could work) Rune On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Louis Lavery <Louis@laver.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 04/10/2010 19:36, Marshall Clow wrote:
On Oct 4, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of John Maddock Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 9:21 AM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Users! Who'd like to wave goodbye to #ifdef BOOST_MSVC6_* workarounds?
Is there a 'do nothing' option here? Ie., leave the codebase unchanged but no longer declare MSVC6 support, and so no longer require authors to support it?
LOL, I suspect that's the current situation ;-)
Agree - so let's just leave the code as is (perhaps adding a stronger "you're entirely on your own with VC6" rider?)
The risks of removing are not worth the effort.
I disagree.
I agree with you.
If it's difficult to remove the MSVC6 specific code then, by definition, the code is difficult to maintain. It's better to learn from mistakes than to ignore them, you don't want to repeat them, do you?
Louis.
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users