David Abrahams wrote: > > 2) We don't recognise the compiler: assume that it is standard > > conforming and disable all workarounds. > > Is this a different case from "we recognize the compiler, but not the > compiler version"? > > Incidentally, I think we had some kind of agreement a while back > (sparked by Thomas Witt, IIRC) that when a workaround is implemented > for the most recent compiler version, no assumption should be made > that the corresponding bug will be fixed in future versions.
That was probably me (http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg16944.php). Actually, it's not "incidentally" at all - that very thread was what triggered the introduction of BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG with the semantics John is trying to defend ;). > I don't think my macro accounts for that, and I really don't know a good way > to cope with it. I don't think we ought to add any workarounds without > at least some way to record the most-recent version where it's known > to be needed. Well, #if defined(COMPILER_VER) && (COMPILER_VER <= xxx || !defined(BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG)) is the current way to do exactly that (a verbose one, admittedly). Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
