Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
Robert Ramey
writes: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
Stephen Kelly
writes: On 10/10/2013 07:48 AM, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
Stephen Kelly
writes: On 10/09/2013 12:39 AM, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote: > I understand there's been some discussion about dropping support > for compliers with BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION > defined. Has some final decision been made about this?
[...] In my case, it's not so much about removing #ifdefs as about eliminating workarounds like this:
Instead of
[...]
I'm forced to write
[...]
Why are you forced to write this? You are not forced to write code compatible with older compilers. It's only an option. Just write the code you want and note that your library is not compatible with certain "older" compilers. Combatibility with non-standard C++ has never been a boost requirement and this is explicitly stated somewhere on the boost website.
I didn't express myself clearly. Of course noone forces me to write for non-compliant compilers, but when I began Boost.MultiIndex non-compliance was the norem (remember the days of MSC++ 6.0) and I carefully wrote all the necessary workadounds, up to a certain point (never could make the lib work for Borland commpilers.) Now that the situation with compilers is much better, I'm happy to drop legacy support: I just prefer to do it in alignment with official Boost policies about which compilers are defintely abandoned.
But you wouldn't want to go back and make adjustments in the current code just to make it non-functional with older compilers, would you? What is the return on THAT investment. Wouldn't it be best to just ignore these macros going forward? RObert Ramey
Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica Digital
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost