From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 09:33:32
>> 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
> a simple task, so I'll need some additional time to fulfill my promise.
Will it cover all the clauses from standard specification? How long will it
>> 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?
Actually I would be more interested in old sun and gcc compilers. But this
is beyond the point.
> 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.
No. I think it would be a waste to invest your efforts to try to make it
compile for old compilers. After all those users who interested in compiling
custom preprocessor should be able to get a hold of latest gcc.
>> , 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
> on is not.
Oh! I know numerous example like that. I had an unfortunate need to modify
some behavior in doxygen recently - and I really disliked the way it's
written. But it doesn't make this tool less valuable. Note I am not saying
anything about the wave library - I did not (and should not) look into it's
> And I think it shouldn't be a problem to provide precompiled binaries
> with the boost releases on some major platforms. Perhaps this would help
> remove your initial concern?
I believe we (boost) need a formal notion of a tool that is delivered as a
binary plus source code for those platforms we did not provide binary for.
BTW binary shouldn't be a part of main delivery packager - only docs should.
>> 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 inconvenience are you actually facing? Sorry, but I did get it yet.
Let's say I want an apple sauce. Instead you giving me an apples (they may
be good ones or not so much, since for sauce it doesn't really matter and
why waste good apples on sauce) and saying that if I have powerful enough
mixer (or whatever it called) I could get a sauce in just a second. And the
reason you are telling me is that there are some people out there who may've
want slightly less sugar. I believe it's not good enough: give me my sauce -
I do not want spend time making one, I do not have an appropriate mixer and
I do not have a space to store all these apples.
> Regards Hartmut
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk