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?
> How long will it run?
> > 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
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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk