Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:34:16PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> All this is just so super ugly that I cannot fathom why all other >> compilers than 2.95 has to suffer by this. > > Well, you could as well decide that 2.95 is off the 'supported' list > now. [I personally wouldn't care now]
I am in favour of supporting 2.95 as long as the needed fixes are just as simple as "include an additional header in that file" or similar. But I agree that this const_cast case is ugly, since this is clearly a compiler bug of 2.95. The only reason I use 2.95 is that it is the default compiler on Debian stable and I have to recompile qt (and maybe other libs?) if I were to use 3.x. I don't mind keeping these const_casts privately. That is also the reason why I did not ask to include them in the official tree once I realized that the compiler was wrong. Georg
