Re: [boost] PP: BOOST_PP_IS_SEQ wanted

From: Vesa Karvonen (vesa_karvonen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-15 02:56:40

Paul Mensonides:
[...]
>The sheer amount of hacks contained in the pp-lib to make things work
>on broken preprocessors is evidence of this.  It contains nearly four
>separate implementations of the same thing--just for that purpose.
[...]

hmm... Neither Boost.Config nor the regression logs reveal the buggy 
preprocessors. I think that this is a problem. The effort that goes into 
writing the workarounds goes essentially unnoticed. Also, people can not see 
how buggy the compilers really are.

I think that it would be wise to write a failing regression test for every 
distinct kind of workaround - not just for the PP library. Anyone, including 
compiler vendors, would then be able to easily see how each compiler is 
doing. I know that having to write such compiler bug tests is at least as 
displeasing as writing workarounds, but otherwise the effort that goes into 
producing the workarounds goes almost totally unnoticed.

The way the workaround are written in the PP library, for example, would 
make it quite easy to show just how many workarounds are needed on buggy 
preprocessors. Basically, one could write a simple test for every PP library 
interface macro. Then those tests can easily be run both with and without 
workarounds.

-Vesa

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail