At 07:45 AM 8/19/2002, John Maddock wrote:

 > >...
 > > has to intend the macros as
 > >
 > > BOOST_DOESNT_USE_featurexxx
 > >
 > > It's only a different point of view and it affects the documentation
 > > only but I think it's important anyway. It also avoid us to make
 > > incorrect assertions about compiler bugs (we only say that there are
 > > bugs associated with a certain feature, and that therefore the code of
 > > the library takes them into account - in practice, it doesn't use the
 > > feature, but that in theory is not the only option).
 > 
 > Yes, that's what we mean.  The problem is that the descriptions are 
pretty
 > thin for some of the macros, but I probably should add a global caveat to
 > the docs to make it clear that we are testing for particular failures,
 > rather than a feature that is completely missing.  I guess ultimately it 
is
 > the test cases that are the real docs:-)

I would worry more about the issue Gennaro raises if these macros were 
permanent fixtures for Boost and C++.  But for the current release of 
several compilers, there are no BOOST_NO_xxx macros at all, and I would be 
surprised if current releases of any mainstream compiler a year from now 
needed them.

That isn't to say support for legacy compilers isn't important, but maybe 
we shouldn't ask John and other developers to put much effort into refining 
something that is gradually fading away.

--Beman


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost