6 Dec
2005
6 Dec
'05
7:15 p.m.
On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:21 PM, Martin Wille wrote:
I agree, the use of the "1." is questionable. However, we could reserve 2.x.y for a version of Boost that does not contain any workarounds for ancient, non-conforming compilers, or for a similar clean-cut scenario.
I used to think that some day we would get a Boost 2.x that would toss away all of the silly workarounds, but I don't suspect it will ever happen. As compilers drop off the face of the planet, so will their workarounds, but it won't be a big event. "Wow, Boost 2.0, they got rid of junk from 15-year-old compilers!" :) Doug