On 05.07.2017 18:00, Asbjørn via Boost wrote:
On 05.07.2017 23:30, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
What problem is this supposed to solve ? How frequently do users need both address-models on the same deployment platform (and in the same path) ?
I built executables for distribution on Windows (ie in an installer), where I provided both 32bit and 64bit versions of the program. Why not build separate 32-bit and 64-bit installers, as lots of other applications do ?
Being able to have both variants of the compiled libraries in the same directory would have simplified the usage of Boost.
Given that 32bit versions of Windows are still rather common, I imagine this is still a quite relevant scenario for Windows applications built with Boost.
While 32-bit systems may still exist, I find it extremely rare that someone with a 64-bit system wants to run 32-bit applications. So dealing with the (slight) inconvenience to have separate paths in these (rare) cases seems more appropriate than having everyone pay the price for the added complexity. Stefan
Just my 2 cents :)
Cheers - Asbjørn
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...