David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
That sounds like what I did for version 1.32.
Is it equivalent to what you did, or does it just sound reminiscent?
I considered a very ugly hack. ^ "it?"
I don't think I was the only person that felt this way. I resolved to fix it in the next version - and here we are. oh well.
Surely you don't think the recommendation I'm suggesting for conforming compilers is an ugly hack?
IMO it doesn't matter much how ugly the portable-to-broken-compilers workaround is, as long as it's legit for the conforming ones and doesn't induce maintenance problems.
So do you have anything to say about this? I hate to be a pest, but I've sunk so much time into getting these issues remedied that I'm unwilling to have the issue evaporate into the past without getting addressed. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com