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

From: Hartmut Kaiser (HartmutKaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 11:06:34

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

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

Boost.Python isn't so widely used and a niche library aimed to solve a very
specific problem, for instance.

> > 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.
> 
> Will it cover all the clauses from standard specification? 

Why not?

> How long will it run?

Can't estimate?

> > 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.

That was my initial thinking when I decided to write Wave ignoring older
compilers, so I don't understand your initial concern anymore.

> > I don't see how the tool could be 'excellent' if the 
> library the tool 
> > relies 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 
> internals.

Again, I don't understand your initial concern anymore.

> > 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 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.

That's out of question.

> > 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.

Sorry, now I've lost you completely. I'm not able to follow your metaphers
here. What are the apples? - Boost? And what's the sugar? - Wave?

Regards Hartmut