15 Jun
2006
15 Jun
'06
5:22 p.m.
"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Heh, I think we ought to think very carefully about changing our default.
I agree: normally our default is the same as the compiler's default, if you want to do something out of the ordinary then it's up to you to compile the lib's the way you want them. I don't think there's any way we can provide every possible binary.
a. I don't think you're actually agreeing with me. Maybe s/carefully/seriously/? b. Normally our default is not the same as the compiler's default when the compiler's default is nonconformant, as it is in this case. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com