Brian Allison <brian@dtmr.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
"Reece Dunn" [1]<msclrhd@hotmail.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Sounds good, but I'd like to know, as a practical matter, what the difference between these two is. Less pressure on developers to support the 2nd category?
The first would mean that Boost guarantees support for the specified compiler/version
What does that mean? Every developer is obligated to make his library work on that compiler? That would be unprecedented (though not out of the question).
If only highly conformant compilers were on the list of 'guaranteed' compilers, then the obligation could be restated that the developers write conformant code and that the compilers be at least X conformant. Then the developers can concentrate not on catering to a broken compiler, and those who insist on using such compilers can bear the brunt of the brokenness - instead of the developers who are donating their time and efforts to help others through their work. Just one lurker's opinion - hopefully one for illumination and not inflamation.
But how would it change anything? We don't "guarantee" anything today, and I'm pretty sure we won't guarantee anything a year from now either. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com