Jan Stetka wrote:
Hi
Edward Diener wrote:
The combinations which failed were Wave and Program_Options with VC6.
Since you are interested in these libraries then its quite bold to say that all libraries should give information on supported compilers.
Bold ? It is not logical to you that a library should say which compilers are supported in its use ? How many people do you know create computer software and tell the end user that they do not know whether the software works in a particular environment, but that it is up to the end user to find out ? Would you call developers successful who have that attitude ?
You have found for yourself that these libraries don't compile on VC6 so what use would a table telling you that have been?
Because I don't know whether the failures of those libraries are because they don't support VC6 or because there are bugs in the implementation and they were meant to support VC6. I am asking for information on the former so I know what to do when the latter occurs.
My advice is use a more up to date compiler where you can.
I already know that but in my case I can not. I work for a living and when my boss tells me to use VC6 or I won't work for him, because I like to do things like eating, I use VC6. Believe me I have already suggested upgrading to VC7.1 or VC8 a number of times already.
The acid test is when you come to compile boost and use it for a particular purpose.
That should have been resolved before the library is put out.
If its something you feel strongly about perhaps you might be interested in collecting such information for the boost community.
Not my job. How happy you will be when your end-users do the work for you of determining whether or not your software works for them in their environment. But I don't think you will sell or even give away much software like that.
I for one find the documentation very good for boost.
It generally is. But that is neither here nor there regarding this issue.