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 I'm saying is "not reproducible" or "unverified" or "unproved". 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. Robert Ramey