From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-30 12:24:20
At 07:12 AM 4/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>"Vesa Karvonen" <vesa_karvonen_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> A trivial way to put this into standardeze would be to add a
>> translation phase after macro replacement that would convert these
>> alternative tokens to their usual representation.
>If it sounds useful to you, it's sounds good to me. Why not write up
>a proposal for the committee?
It seems to me the committee (more particularly, the Evolution Working
Group) is now more willing to seriously consider small changes to the
preprocessor. But unless carefully presented, preprocessor changes are
still likely to face an uphill battle.
To maximize the likelihood of acceptance, consider something like this:
* Implement the feature in Wave, to establish actual implementation
experience. Perhaps keep a note of how much added Wave code is required.
* Let Wave users develop some experience with the feature, to find out how
useful and robust it is in practice.
* Iterate the above, if the feature isn't quite right yet.
* Do the same for other small PP features.
* Write a unified proposal to the committee leaning heavily on the existing
practice that has been developed, with several Boosters as co-authors.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk