RE: [boost] Re: [wave] tool/lib

From: Hartmut Kaiser (HartmutKaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 02:35:06

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

> > Wave is not just a tool, if one defines a tool as just a program to 
> > run
> with
> > some command line options, or a GUI in which one fills in 
> some dialog 
> > and runs. While Wave has a command line, it also has a programming 
> > interface
> 
> I am not saying it could not be used as a mean for creating 
> custom preprocessor. But I do see it used this way only for 
> some arcane and/or academic purposes, which IMO will cover 
> quite small portion of it's users.

Agreed on that. But there are other libraries in Boost as well which
'suffer' from the same 'problem'.

> And I do not see why the rest of us should be faced with 
> library that will never be tested, 

I don't know why you're so sure this library never will be tested. As I've
said during the review I'm working on a test suite, which can be run as an
integral part of the regression process. But please consider this to be not
a simple task, so I'll need some additional time to fulfill my promise.

> require comparatively 
> advanced compilers and need to do actual compilation before 
> it could be used

This is a real problem, and I'm aware of it. I assume you're interested in
compiling Wave with VC6? 
I'm willing to work on that if there is only a real need in the community.
Wave doesn't use any advanced C++ features which couldn't be replaced for
older compilers. So I'm pretty confident that this could be done.

> , with very limited understanding from 
> majority of the community how it's working. While instead we 
> could have excellent tool that works with all compilers, 
> delivered in a format desirable by majority of it's users 
> without need for compilation and simple usage docs.

I don't see how the tool could be 'excellent' if the library the tool relies
on is not. 

And I think it shouldn't be a problem to provide precompiled binaries along
with the boost releases on some major platforms. Perhaps this would help to
remove your initial concern?

>   I guess an ability to create a custom C++ preprocessors 
> (when even to start using wave this way one needs to be an 
> expect in C++ preprocessor
> standard) is not compelling enough for me to justify an 
> inconvenience for the majority of the users.

What inconvinience are you actually facing? Sorry, but I did get it yet.

Regards Hartmut