[GiNaC-list] Re: GiNaC 1.3.1

[Chris Dams]

On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 22:49 +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:

> As you notice, this binary compatibilty issue makes your patch eligible
> for GiNaC 1.4.0 at best.  If your patch solves a real problem, then we
> should reconsider it.  But my impression was that it only solved a
> theoretical problem that no user of the library could possibly hit.
> Wrong?

Hello?
Anybody home?
You have code in GiNaC that suggest protection against static
initialization order problems that in fact does not do anything
whatsoever.
It should either be fixed or removed.
Does anybody care about this?

This is the second time that Richy leaves the discussion by not
responding. I am getting more than a little irritated by this.

I have no idea how Richy got the idea that my path only solves a
"theoretical problem". Perhaps some other developer could continue this
discussion, since it appears that it is impossible to discuss with
Richy.

Chris.