Here is the current list:
* lexical_cast problems.
Hold changes for next release?
* Regex make boost work better patch from Lars Gullik Bjønnes
John Maddock says he will apply soon.
* [status/Jamfile] Jamfile patches for Borland
Dave says factor commonality out into template.
Too late
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It looks to me like we should hold the lexical_cast changes until the
next release. There are really two issues IIUC - some wide-character
support problems and VC++ 6.0 support. While the wide-character
problems might be possible to resolve quickly, VC++
Beman Dawes wrote:
* Daniel Frey: provided a fix for some warnings in the type-traits
(is_class/is_enum IIRC), John Maddock is aware of it AFAIK.
Just to remove any doubts: This should not be a show-stopper. The
warnings are in there for quite some time and type-traits are to
complicated
At 10:58 AM 3/13/2003, Daniel Frey wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
* Daniel Frey: provided a fix for some warnings in the type-traits
(is_class/is_enum IIRC), John Maddock is aware of it AFAIK.
Just to remove any doubts: This should not be a show-stopper. The
warnings are in there for quite some
Thomas Witt wrote:
Hi,
I am biased anyway, but I would vote for reverting the lexical_cast
changes in RC_1_30_0.
I was just looking at the new lexical_cast implementation and unless I
messed up with updating my tree to RC_1_30_0 the documentation needs to
be fixed as well.
AFAICS the
Thomas Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I got the impression that the majority on the list want's the change
in string semantics and I am willing to accept this. But I would
really like to see the documentation clearly state that strings are
handled differently.
I agree, and would go further.
--- Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTOH, it's very tiresome waiting for these last minute fixes, which don't
seem particularly critical anyhow. Assuming lexical_cast is reverted, maybe
we should just go ahead with the release now.
Whatever you do, please give me (another...) realistic
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only concern about this is that IIUC Bjorn has been making lots of
promises that the new lexical_cast was going to be in 1.30.0. I
don't want to break promises without due consideration.
To me branching for release also is a promise: relative
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:45 PM 3/13/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Thomas Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I got the impression that the majority on the list want's the change
in string semantics and I am willing to accept this. But I would
really like to see the
David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kevlin did update the docs; the complaint is that the updates are unclear.
I thought the complaint was that the current state is plain inaccurate
in major ways.
The complaint is that the doc's are misleading, at times straddling the
Thomas Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kevlin did update the docs; the complaint is that the updates are unclear.
I thought the complaint was that the current state is plain
inaccurate
in major ways.
The complaint is that the
11 matches
Mail list logo
