[test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Joaquin M LópezMuñoz
Hello,

As of Jan 28, the CVS version of Boost.Test has some commits
labeled "VC6.0 workaround removed", which, expectedly enough,
cause some of Boost.Test facilities to fail for that compiler-- for
instance,
including <boost/test/included/test_exec_monitor.hpp> no longer
works in VC 6.5.

Let me say in advance that I fully respect Gennadiy's decisions on which

compilers he chooses Boost.Test should have support for, but I'd like to

make sure before deciding on switching my current test framework, so
my question is: is this a conscious decision and VC6.5 won't be
supported
by Boost.Test  from now on, or, on the contrary, is this a transient
state
and VC 6.0 will be finally supported by Boost.Test 1.34?

Thank you,

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Gennadiy Rozental
> Let me say in advance that I fully respect Gennadiy's decisions on which
>
> compilers he chooses Boost.Test should have support for, but I'd like to
>
> make sure before deciding on switching my current test framework, so
> my question is: is this a conscious decision and VC6.5 won't be
> supported
> by Boost.Test  from now on, or, on the contrary, is this a transient
> state
> and VC 6.0 will be finally supported by Boost.Test 1.34?

This was the plan. It's still unclear at the moment. Depending what the
community decide. I personally prefer to get rid of ancient compilers
support and anyone interested in msvc 6.5 could use boost 1.33.1. But we may
decide to just deprecate it in this release and get rid of it later. Or may
keep it forever. Check "supported compilers" discussion. Let us know your
opinion on this top in general.

Gennadiy



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Doug Gregor
In reply to this post by Joaquin M LópezMuñoz

On Feb 2, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:

> Let me say in advance that I fully respect Gennadiy's decisions on  
> which
>
> compilers he chooses Boost.Test should have support for, but I'd  
> like to
>
> make sure before deciding on switching my current test framework, so
> my question is: is this a conscious decision and VC6.5 won't be
> supported
> by Boost.Test  from now on, or, on the contrary, is this a transient
> state
> and VC 6.0 will be finally supported by Boost.Test 1.34?

We definitely need to know what's happening here. If Boost.Test is  
going to drop VC6 support, that's fine, but we need to know sooner  
rather than later. I have several libraries that will need to move to  
another testing infrastructure if Boost.Test drops support for older  
compilers.

        Doug
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Jody Hagins
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:29:43 -0500
Douglas Gregor <[hidden email]> wrote:


> We definitely need to know what's happening here. If Boost.Test is  
> going to drop VC6 support, that's fine, but we need to know sooner  
> rather than later. I have several libraries that will need to move to
>
> another testing infrastructure if Boost.Test drops support for older  
> compilers.


I've been advocating for dropping ancient compilers for a while.
However, I think we should NOT just drop a compiler without notification
for at least one release cycle.

If we are sure we want to drop a compiler, decide on it now and
deprecate it for 1.34, then you can drop it in a subsequent release.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Gennadiy Rozental
In reply to this post by Doug Gregor
> We definitely need to know what's happening here. If Boost.Test is
> going to drop VC6 support, that's fine, but we need to know sooner
> rather than later. I have several libraries that will need to move to
> another testing infrastructure if Boost.Test drops support for older
> compilers.

You need support for msvc 6.5? Could you please clarify in more details
please.

Gennadiy



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

John Maddock
In reply to this post by Doug Gregor
> We definitely need to know what's happening here. If Boost.Test is
> going to drop VC6 support, that's fine, but we need to know sooner
> rather than later. I have several libraries that will need to move to
> another testing infrastructure if Boost.Test drops support for older
> compilers.

That's the crux of things isn't it?  If Boost.Test drops support for older
compilers then none of us can test our libraries with those compilers unless
we reinvent Boost.Test like functionality.

Again I'd like add that I'd like this support retained, even if it's just
minimal legacy support (forwarding to a bunch of VC6 specific headers that
don't get any new functionality or bug fixes).

John.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Gennadiy Rozental

"John Maddock" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:013901c6282d$4dd8a1c0$4feb0352@fuji...

>> We definitely need to know what's happening here. If Boost.Test is
>> going to drop VC6 support, that's fine, but we need to know sooner
>> rather than later. I have several libraries that will need to move to
>> another testing infrastructure if Boost.Test drops support for older
>> compilers.
>
> That's the crux of things isn't it?  If Boost.Test drops support for older
> compilers then none of us can test our libraries with those compilers
> unless
> we reinvent Boost.Test like functionality.
> Again I'd like add that I'd like this support retained, even if it's just

Ok Lets spell it out.

1. Which compiler should be considerred old/depricated/half supported?
2. What kind of minimal support is assumed?
3. Is there a timeframe where this situation will stay like this:
essencially how longer there will be at least one Boost developer interestd
in running test on one of the compilers mentioned in 1.
4. Until compiler is completely dropped it's required that somebody will run
regression tests for this compiler. Otherwise how would I know this
configuration still works. So who is gonna run regression tests for
compilers specified in 1?

Once these point cleared I a mhfully ready to comply with the plan.

> minimal legacy support (forwarding to a bunch of VC6 specific headers that
> don't get any new functionality or bug fixes).

Why dont you do it yourself? Just point onto installed 1.33.1 Location when
you want to test against dropped compiler?

> John.

Gennadiy



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Richard Day
In reply to this post by Jody Hagins
Jody Hagins wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:29:43 -0500
>Douglas Gregor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>>We definitely need to know what's happening here. If Boost.Test is  
>>going to drop VC6 support, that's fine, but we need to know sooner  
>>rather than later. I have several libraries that will need to move to
>>
>>another testing infrastructure if Boost.Test drops support for older  
>>compilers.
>>    
>>
>
>
>I've been advocating for dropping ancient compilers for a while.
>However, I think we should NOT just drop a compiler without notification
>for at least one release cycle.
>
>If we are sure we want to drop a compiler, decide on it now and
>deprecate it for 1.34, then you can drop it in a subsequent release.
>
Please do not drop msvc6sp5 yet. I need it still. Upgrading my compiler
is not an option at this time as I have applications I need to continue
supporting which would break with visual studio.net and cause me a lot
of grief and headaches not to mention lots of work.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Joaquin M LópezMuñoz
In reply to this post by Gennadiy Rozental
Hello Gennadiy,

Gennadiy Rozental ha escrito:

> "John Maddock" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
> news:013901c6282d$4dd8a1c0$4feb0352@fuji...
> >> We definitely need to know what's happening here. If Boost.Test is
> >> going to drop VC6 support, that's fine, but we need to know sooner
> >> rather than later. I have several libraries that will need to move to
> >> another testing infrastructure if Boost.Test drops support for older
> >> compilers.
> >
> > That's the crux of things isn't it?  If Boost.Test drops support for older
> > compilers then none of us can test our libraries with those compilers
> > unless
> > we reinvent Boost.Test like functionality.
> > Again I'd like add that I'd like this support retained, even if it's just
>
> Ok Lets spell it out.
>
> 1. Which compiler should be considerred old/depricated/half supported?

Discussion has centered around VC6.5, BCB and GCC2.95. Your
recent workaround removals seem to only affect VC6.5, so this
is probably the only compiler relevant wrt to Boost.Test support-dropping
policy.

> 2. What kind of minimal support is assumed?

I'd say, enough not to break any current tests in the regression
engines that rely on Boost.Test (except, possibly, those of Boost.Test
itself.) A stronger requirement is: support at least every feature available
in Boost 1.33 (so, this does not include new features to be introduced
in Boost 1.34.)


> 3. Is there a timeframe where this situation will stay like this:
> essencially how longer there will be at least one Boost developer interestd
> in running test on one of the compilers mentioned in 1.

I will be in the foreseeable future, but then again the decision of how Boost.Test

should evolve is yours.
I don't want to interfere with your planned roadmap, but I must know if I can
rely on Boost.Test/VC6.5 right now, because feature freeze is
approaching and if you drop support several libs (not only mine) will
have to switch their test framework immediately.

Let's say: What about restoring VC6.5 support for Boost 1.34, and dropping
it, if this is your wish, right after the release (properly announcing the event,
etc.)? This will give people several months to adapt, not several days like it is
currently the case.

>
> 4. Until compiler is completely dropped it's required that somebody will run
> regression tests for this compiler. Otherwise how would I know this
> configuration still works. So who is gonna run regression tests for
> compilers specified in 1?

Hopefully, Aleksey is going to restore support for VC (and possibly BCB), see
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/01/99844.php
GCC 2.95 us currently being tested.

> Once these point cleared I a mhfully ready to comply with the plan.
>
> > minimal legacy support (forwarding to a bunch of VC6 specific headers that
> > don't get any new functionality or bug fixes).
>
> Why dont you do it yourself? Just point onto installed 1.33.1 Location when
> you want to test against dropped compiler?

Unfortunately, this is not possible for the scenario John and others face, namely
regression testing their Boost libs: We cannot possibly mandate that regression
testers keep a 1.33.1 package installed and properly forwarded to run some
of the 1.34 tests.

My personal opinion on the issue of Boost.Test quitting supporting
older compilers is the following: Currently, many (possibly most) Boost libs
are using Boost.Test for regression testing purposes. This is admittedly
a very primitive usage scenario, considering the amount of functionality
the lib provides (reporting, unit testing, fixtures, etc.), but it is a good
advertising
window for Boost.Test, and looks like the "natural" thing to do: after all, people

peek test code and are likely to learn by example from it, so it's good that they
see Boost.Test in action.
Now, if you drop support for VC6.5 and other oldies, and are *not*
the last in abandon that ship (and right now you aren't the last),
more and more Boost libs will change to something other than Boost.Test,
most likely to boost/detail/lightweight_test.hpp, which wasn't designed
for public consumption in the first place. Users could be drawn then
to think: "what's the deal about Boost.Test if Boost authors themselves
don't use it?". And this is in direct contrast with your own words
in Boost.Test docs (quote follows):

"Because the Boost Test Library is critical for porting and testing
Boost libraries, it has been written to be extremely conservative in its use
of C++ features, and to keep dependencies to a bare minimum."

But of course, one must evolve and you don't want to be tied up by the
restrictions these old compilers impose. How to resolve the dilemma?
I'd say: after 1.34, review the usage of Boost.Test by Boost regression
tests (or make a poll about it), try to isolate this functionality
into a maximally portable component, ask Boost authors to move
to that in time for Boost 1.35 and strive to keep that minimal part
as untouched as possible in the future. This way Boost.Test
would deliver:

1. Maximal portability for basic testing.
AND
2. Advanced testing functionality for compliant compilers.

So, you can have your cake and eat it :)


> > John.
>
> Gennadiy

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Gennadiy Rozental
In reply to this post by Richard Day
>>If we are sure we want to drop a compiler, decide on it now and
>>deprecate it for 1.34, then you can drop it in a subsequent release.
>>
> Please do not drop msvc6sp5 yet. I need it still. Upgrading my compiler
> is not an option at this time as I have applications I need to continue
> supporting which would break with visual studio.net and cause me a lot
> of grief and headaches not to mention lots of work.

You could continue supporting msvc 6.5 for existent application without
upgrading boost. 1.33.1 version of Boost.Test supports msvc6.5.

Gennadiy



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Gennadiy Rozental
In reply to this post by Joaquin M LópezMuñoz
> > 1. Which compiler should be considerred old/depricated/half supported?
>
> Discussion has centered around VC6.5, BCB and GCC2.95. Your
> recent workaround removals seem to only affect VC6.5, so this
> is probably the only compiler relevant wrt to Boost.Test support-dropping
> policy.

Actually all of them are subject to be deprecated/non supported.

> Now, if you drop support for VC6.5 and other oldies, and are *not*
> the last in abandon that ship (and right now you aren't the last),

I sitll couldn't understand what you all doing there.

> "Because the Boost Test Library is critical for porting and testing
> Boost libraries, it has been written to be extremely conservative in its
> use
> of C++ features, and to keep dependencies to a bare minimum."

It's still true, comparatively speaking.

Ok. Here is what I think I will do.

Starting release 1.34 Boost.Test *officially* stop supporting VC 6.5,
GCC2.95 and old Borland. Unofficially Boost.Test is required to make sure
that none of the test that are included in Boost regression testing are not
failing due to failure in Boost.Test. If regression testing is dropped for
any of above compilers it means that Boost.Test is not bound by any
requirements anymore.

How does this sound?

Gennadiy



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Richard Day
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

>>>1. Which compiler should be considerred old/depricated/half supported?
>>>      
>>>
>>Discussion has centered around VC6.5, BCB and GCC2.95. Your
>>recent workaround removals seem to only affect VC6.5, so this
>>is probably the only compiler relevant wrt to Boost.Test support-dropping
>>policy.
>>    
>>
>
>Actually all of them are subject to be deprecated/non supported.
>
>  
>
>>Now, if you drop support for VC6.5 and other oldies, and are *not*
>>the last in abandon that ship (and right now you aren't the last),
>>    
>>
>
>I sitll couldn't understand what you all doing there.
>
>  
>
>>"Because the Boost Test Library is critical for porting and testing
>>Boost libraries, it has been written to be extremely conservative in its
>>use
>>of C++ features, and to keep dependencies to a bare minimum."
>>    
>>
>
>It's still true, comparatively speaking.
>
>Ok. Here is what I think I will do.
>
>Starting release 1.34 Boost.Test *officially* stop supporting VC 6.5,
>GCC2.95 and old Borland. Unofficially Boost.Test is required to make sure
>that none of the test that are included in Boost regression testing are not
>failing due to failure in Boost.Test. If regression testing is dropped for
>any of above compilers it means that Boost.Test is not bound by any
>requirements anymore.
>
>How does this sound?
>
>Gennadiy
>
It sounds like I and many other people are going to have to stop using
boost as many of us are still tied to this compiler whether we like it
or not. We do not all have a choice as to what compiler we can use. We
must make do with what we have.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Reece Dunn
Richard V. Day wrote:
>It sounds like I and many other people are going to have to stop using
>boost as many of us are still tied to this compiler whether we like it
>or not. We do not all have a choice as to what compiler we can use. We
>must make do with what we have.

You can still use Boost 1.33.1. The older versions won't suddenly stop
supporting the older compilers.

- Reece


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Joaquin M LópezMuñoz
In reply to this post by Joaquin M LópezMuñoz
Hello Gennadiy,

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Gennadiy Rozental <[hidden email]>
Fecha: Viernes, Febrero 3, 2006 9:49 pm
Asunto: Re: [boost] [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

[...]

>
> Ok. Here is what I think I will do.
>
> Starting release 1.34 Boost.Test *officially* stop supporting VC
> 6.5,
> GCC2.95 and old Borland. Unofficially Boost.Test is required to
> make sure
> that none of the test that are included in Boost regression
> testing are not
> failing due to failure in Boost.Test. If regression testing is
> dropped for
> any of above compilers it means that Boost.Test is not bound by
> any
> requirements anymore.
>
> How does this sound?
>

To me, it sounds perfect. Thank you very much for your
consideration.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Gennadiy Rozental
In reply to this post by Richard Day
> It sounds like I and many other people are going to have to stop using
> boost as many of us are still tied to this compiler whether we like it
> or not. We do not all have a choice as to what compiler we can use. We
> must make do with what we have.

It looks like you safe. At least until boost doesn't stop running regression
test got these compilers.
Don't expect though any new features to work.

Gennadiy



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

David Abrahams
In reply to this post by Richard Day
"Richard V. Day" <[hidden email]> writes:

> It sounds like I and many other people are going to have to stop
> using boost as many of us are still tied to this compiler whether we
> like it or not. We do not all have a choice as to what compiler we
> can use. We must make do with what we have.

It is true that programmers targeting embedded platforms (such as the
SH4) don't have a choice about upgrading.

I can think of at least one company that might accept support
contracts to keep Boost viable with vc6.5.  The only question in my
mind is whether library maintainers would accept the patches or the
company would have to maintain a fork.

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Kevin Heifner
David Abrahams wrote:
> I can think of at least one company that might accept support
> contracts to keep Boost viable with vc6.5.  The only question in my
> mind is whether library maintainers would accept the patches or the
> company would have to maintain a fork.

Patches are not always practical.  For example if you want to
support a compiler that does not provide namespaces.  The
workarounds impact the interface.

ACE/TAO, for example, have forked open source versions supported
commercially.  Enhancements and bug fixes are rolled forward into
the cutting edge 'head' versions.  This arrangement has worked
successfully for many years.

And yes I know a commercial company that is willing to accept
support contracts to keep Boost viable with vc6.5.  The
commercial companies provide support for those that need to stay
put on old compilers while allowing the community to move forward
more rapidly.

KevinH
--
Kevin Heifner  heifner @ ociweb.com  http://heifner.blogspot.com
           Object Computing, Inc. (OCI) www.ociweb.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Jeff Garland
In reply to this post by David Abrahams
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 23:51:53 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
> "Richard V. Day" <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > It sounds like I and many other people are going to have to stop
> > using boost as many of us are still tied to this compiler whether we
> > like it or not. We do not all have a choice as to what compiler we
> > can use. We must make do with what we have.

As has been pointed out you can use everything in boost up to 1.33.1 -- it's
just that you won't have access to the very latest boost versions.  One part
of the dynamic here is that many of the VC6 projects using boost now won't
upgrade boost anyway because of the fear of breaking something -- it's the
same argument that keeps them using VC6.  If there's really some new library
that is critical for their future, then these projects can work with developer
or try to back-port for their own use.
 
> It is true that programmers targeting embedded platforms (such as the
> SH4) don't have a choice about upgrading.
>
> I can think of at least one company that might accept support
> contracts to keep Boost viable with vc6.5.  The only question in my
> mind is whether library maintainers would accept the patches or the
> company would have to maintain a fork.

I think a fork or perhaps an 'official' branch with commercial support is good
solution.  I don't think alot of open source projects will be impacted by
dropping vc6 support.  If commercial enterprises want to band together to
extend support then that's their right and choice.  Sharing back with the
community is to their advantage, so we should support it -- as long as it
doesn't detract from pushing boost forward into the future.

Jeff
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

David Abrahams
"Jeff Garland" <[hidden email]> writes:

> I think a fork or perhaps an 'official' branch with commercial
> support

Are those distinct things?

> is good solution.

It sounds really confusing to me.  Users will wonder if the "official"
boost release is... the "official" branch that has the backing of
commercial support, or... the one that's on the main trunk and is
"supported" by boost.org

> I don't think alot of open source projects will be impacted by
> dropping vc6 support.  If commercial enterprises want to band together to
> extend support then that's their right and choice.  Sharing back with the
> community is to their advantage, so we should support it -- as long as it
> doesn't detract from pushing boost forward into the future.

I guess allowing it to sit in the CVS on a branch would be nice, but I
don't think it really amounts to "support..." unless you had something
else in mind (?)

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [test] VC6.5 no longer supported?

Jeff Garland
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:58:29 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
> "Jeff Garland" <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > I think a fork or perhaps an 'official' branch with commercial
> > support
>
> Are those distinct things?

Yes.  A fork would be an externally maintained distribution -- ala the Debian
verions of boost -- a branch would be in the main Boost repository.
Either/both can be done.
 
> > is good solution.
>
> It sounds really confusing to me.  Users will wonder if the
> "official" boost release is... the "official" branch that has the
> backing of commercial support, or... the one that's on the main
> trunk and is "supported" by boost.org

Sorry to confuse -- hopefully the above clears it up.  

> > I don't think alot of open source projects will be impacted by
> > dropping vc6 support.  If commercial enterprises want to band together to
> > extend support then that's their right and choice.  Sharing back with the
> > community is to their advantage, so we should support it -- as long as it
> > doesn't detract from pushing boost forward into the future.
>
> I guess allowing it to sit in the CVS on a branch would be nice, but
> I don't think it really amounts to "support..." unless you had something
> else in mind (?)

Not by itself, but it would be of some value to some members of the community.
The 'support' would be answering questions and making fixes and releases on
that branch.

Jeff
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
12