On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Mike Nordell wrote:
> Joaquin Cuenca Abela wrote:
> > of course it will be cool to use map, vector, the algos, etc. but I
> > think it's better to wait for our "supported" compilers to implement
> > correctly the STL (btw, are there any "supported" compiler (not an
> > imaginary one) that right now fails to implement this stuff?
>
> Yes. MSVC. PJP wasn't able to implement a conforming implementations since
> M$ (the largest software company on earth?) couldn't produce a conforming
> compiler. His implementation was buggy. Btw, it's confirmed they're not
> going to deliver a conforming C++ compiler even with the 7.0. :-<
> There are available bugfixes for the header files at dinkumware site, but M$
> still ships the old buggy stuff.
Any pointers to a list of bugs in the MSVC-shipped version of STL? I've
been using many of the basics for several months in my own projects, and
haven't noticed problems. I would be interested in forestalling disaster,
if any...
> But there is another problem we face. What "supported" compilers do we have?
> Sam, feel free to pitch in any time. We maintain a "least common
> denominator" approach atm which I _do_ approve of, no matter what my
> postings might suggest. But I think we at least once in a while (6 months,
> one year?) should evaluate our position re. these issues.
>
> > It would be cool, too, if we could use namespaces... the
> > UT_ stuff is not very sexy.
>
> Amen! That would be progress in the right direction. It would also draw a
> distinct border between XAP and AP stuff (don't know the difference? Hardly
> do I from time to time :-) ).
> I've read something about gcc not handling namespaces. Surely that must have
> been before 2.95.x, or?
Yes. GCC 2.95.x supports namespaces quite well, in my experience.
(wow. two posts in one day. imagine that. =} )
> /Mike
>
>
>
