Robert Ramey wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
Robert, you cannot claim that our stragegy was a failure just because of that account!
I suppose your right. Since, I didn't know what you were trying to accomplish - and still don't, I guess I can't really say whether or not your strategy is/was a failure. Remember all I wanted to do was to tweak a couple of files to avoid a warning which included the word "deprecated" in it and permit one more compiler to build the serialization library.
If you can't provide a minimal test case, then what you are saying is unfounded.
LOL - well I didn't make up the scenario I described. So I can't agree it's unfounded. Maybe it would be more accurate to say what
You can LOL all you want, but what was your basis? The problems you mention might be symptoms of other problems not related to Spirit at all. At best, these are just wild guesses and suspicions. And without real proof, we cannot really know.
I'm saying is "not reproducible" or "unverified" or "unproved".
Unfounded: "Without a basis in reason or fact" seems a better fit, IMO. Your reasoning is flawed because it is not based on hard facts, just suspicions based on circumstances.
And all I'm saying is that your nomenclature and practices regarding #include, versioning, deprecation, etc. create a lot of confusion and extra work - at least for me. This thread seems to indicate I'm not alone in this. Feel free to address or ignore this complaint as you see fit.
So, tell me who else has this problem? AFAICT, it's only you. Andrey has "used it in several projects with great success". His concern has nothing to do with the include structures you complain about so vehemently. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net