On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:36:08 +0000 (UTC), AlisdairM wrote A couple thoughts:
Jeff Garland wrote:
I understand, but that just means 1.34 will be delayed for fixes to these outdated relics and new lousy compilers. We would be better making a clean break now and letting folks with old compilers stick with 1.33.1.
That is harsh for Borland users. The new compiler was released AFTER 1.33.1, with which needs to update several workarounds and then config file before compiling as well as BCB6.
I'm ok with supporting the new Borland compiler if we get someone to regression test it.
I will happily assist library maintainers hunting down and eradicating support for older Borland compilers, so long as the most recent is supported (until such time that 'most recent' is reasonably conforming and no longer auto-deprecated when a new compiler is released)
I don't see the issue this way. The main problem for library authors is that any new code changes might break the fragile workarounds that keep regression tests working for Borland. Then a note needs to go in some documentation to explain this feature isn't available, etc. So with every change we are 'walking on eggshells'. It's this time that I want poured into new library development instead.
Borland is still a moving target. The IS no supported version of boost for the current compiler, and if support is dropped now there will never be one.
I don't agree. If at some future point Borland comes up with a new compiler that is better I think we would welcome it and support it vigorously. Jeff