|
Boost : |
From: Mattias Flodin (flodin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-25 00:57:46
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:38:34PM -0400, Edward Diener wrote:
> "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > The default options might be preferred where an option is truly optional.
> >
> > But for options which increase standards conformance, I think we should
> > turn the option on. Particularly if Boost libraries fail without the
> > option. That isn't an option in my mind, its a requirement:-)
>
> So essentially VC7 now adds the ability to support C++ wchar_t but
> defaults to the previous VC6 situation.
Same thing with the for-scope option. I strongly agree with Beman that
these options are not really optional. For the for scope, it is
difficult to write code that compiles both with and without the option
-- you have to make sure never to reuse a variable name in a second for
loop. I don't think the library writer should be required to keep this
in mind all the time. Trying to stick to the standard takes enough
effort.
Someone ought to write a syntax checker for C++ that checks for ANSI/ISO
compliance of the code (proper use of typename etc). That would make it
so much easier to write portable code. Perhaps something the (to-be?)
C++ parser example in spirit could be used for? :)
-- Mattias Flodin <flodin_at_[hidden]> - http://www.cs.umu.se/~flodin/ Room NADV 102 Department of Computing Science Umeå University S-901 87 Umeå, Sweden -- "Dew knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl yore mistakes." -- Brendan Hills
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk