Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:58:42 +0100, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: > >> Daniel Frey wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> Anyway, I would understand your frustration if you've proposed a drop-in >> replacement for the current 'is_class' implementation that passes all >> the current tests and is better, in at least one way, than what we have >> now - and it was ignored. But that's not what happened, is it? If you > > I can't provide a drop-in replacement. I don't have all the compilers > needed.
<snip> > My "vision" is to do it step-by-step and with the help from others. I > neither have the time nor the amount of compilers needed to do everything > on my own and in one big step. Or are you suggesting that boost can only > be improved by people that have access to all compilers that boost > supports? Than I guess you rule out most of the boosters immediately. I think this is a specious argument. It's easy enough to avoid breaking an implementation by using #ifdefs to arrange that your changes only affect a range of compilers you've tested it against. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
