On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> | Despite that, it seems to be more and more necessary for LyX > >> | developers _and users_ to be using gcc-cvs rather than > >> | gcc-some-recent-release if they want to compile LyX! > >> > >> Bullshit! > >> > >> Please try to backup that claim. > > > | You said yourself in an earlier email how 3.1 is the compiler we > | should be using. And how 3.2 will have some wonderful new template > | code that reduces overhead by a factor of 5. Likewise, you are also > | claiming that the only compilers worth using with exceptions is gcc > > | 3.0. You are similarly calling 2.96 a non-compiler or at least a > | compiler everyone should avoid. > > Please go back and reread my messages... it sees that you only glanced > at them the first time.
I read the last two weeks worth of emails in three days. Maybe you didn't use those words but they are certainly the general impression I got from them. And no I didn't just glance at those messages -- the threads with arguements about boost, compilers and such (the same topic as this thread) were the ones I paid most attention to. Allan. (ARRae)
