At 07:45 2005-11-02, you wrote:
On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Stefan Slapeta wrote:
Jeff Garland wrote:
In date-time this is easy b/c all these calls are in about 20 lines of code. This solution silences both library and user build -- allowing the user to decide on whether they want the warnings for their own code.
[...]
I think this is a nice solution but I'm not sure whether 1.33.1 could be reopened for these changes which would affect many header files in boost.
1.33.1 cannot be reopened for these changes. We need to answer this with either the sledgehammer approach (defining _SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE in a config header) or with some documentation.
at the risk of being told to "shut up and don't 'dis' people in the community that are "promoting C++" (whatever the heck THAT means)", I think Microsoft has messed up on this one. Their "secure" replacements rely on the programmer adding a parameter to give them some "lengths" for destinations. I say #define _SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE and be done with it. _Maybe_ it's nice for new code, but for people upgrading old code it's strictly a PITA and in my opinion adds _nothing_ to the sarfety of a program.
Doug _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"