[boost] Re: ATTN: All Developers Interested in Boost.Preprocessor

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-30 21:19:14

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 08:43 PM 4/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>  >> 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.
>  >
>  >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
>  >preprocessor.
>
> Regardless of whether PP proposals come in one-at-a-time or unified
> into a single coherent proposal, if they are backed up by real-world
> implementation and use experience they will stand a better chance of
> actually making it all the way into the standard.

You'll get no argument from me there.  Your suggestions are good ones.
I just think it might be a good idea to raise the issue with the
committee at an earlier stage to get minds thinking over the
implications and motivations.  Especially the motivations.  I believe
we'll need to pierce some anti-PP biases.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com