Re: [boost] (list a1 a2 ... aN) proposed implementation

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-17 11:45:57

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Only the users of nonconforming compilers/platforms will need to use the
> macro. Nothing is uglified.

That's not really true. Any developer that wants his or her code to be
portable will need to uglify, which is (hopefully) all boost developers.

> Deciding between "works now" and "is the right thing" is difficult,
> but we need to take into account that names we choose may well last
> for five-ten years or more, long after the specific nonconformances
> are addressed by the vendors.

True in general, but in this case the difference between nil and null_type
is so trivial that there is no real advantage in the long term either way.

Cheers,
Jeremy

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jeremy Siek                          http://www.osl.iu.edu/~jsiek/
 Ph.D. Student, Indiana Univ. B'ton   email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)   office phone: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------------------------