From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-30 19:43:07
Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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
> * 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
On the other hand, the lack of an implementation or any experience has
not kept the EWG from intensely discussing a proposal for adding macro
scoping, which IMO is a much bigger change than Vesa's proposing**. It
would seem perverse to refuse to give equal attention to a proposal
like Vesa's which is based the real need of a really heavy user of the
** and which I'm not sure is even addressing a real-world problem. It
might be; I am just not sure.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk