Re: [boost] New dependency report

On 6/6/2014 5:23 PM, Daniel James wrote:

On 6 June 2014 21:41, Edward Diener wrote:

...

Looking through code in MPL, and other long-standing libraries may be similar, the need to keep compiler workarounds in the code for compilers which are obsolete, or do not implement basic parts of even the C++ 98 standard, makes understanding and updating code fairly difficult in many cases. I believe that Boost has a right to say to those who still want to use some of these compilers with Boost that they will have to stick to previous versions. It really becomes difficult for a number of Boost libraries to move forward if they have to continually support poorly conforming compilers. As obvious examples I would not bother trying to support VC++ versions prior to VS2005/VC8 and I would not bother trying to support gcc versions prior to 4.0 etc.

It would be nice if you responded to what I wrote rather than what you imagined I wrote. The problem with the MPL changes was that they were non-trivial, and for a library which is very arcane (with or without workarounds), has little maintenance and a lot of dependants, some of which are unmaintained. Also, many of the dependants hadn't merged Stephen Kelly's changes (some still haven't) and it wasn't clear if it was safe to merge MPL before them. It was nothing to do with maintaining support for Visual C++ 7.0.

What does the quoted contents above have anything to do to what you wrote anywhere ? In other words my response was to a post by John Maddock and has nothing to do with anything you wrote on this thread.