Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 13:35:46

"Jonathan Wakely" <cow_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:18:10PM -0500, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> 2. Wave at the moment does require conformant compiler while end ser may
>> want to use it with different one
> Why should you have to compile Wave with the non-conformant compiler in
> order to use wave with it?
> Download GCC, build Wave, delete GCC, then use Wave to replace your
> non-conformant compiler's preprocessor.
> This isn't ideal, but it's not impossible and allows Wave to be used on
> any platform that GCC runs on.
> What am I missing? Why should it be a requirement that Wave be
> compilable with all broken compilers that might want a better CPP ?

It shouldn't. And it was exactly my point.

Also I do not see why I need to compile it in a first place. If I follow the
logic that all open source tools need to be delivered in a form of source
code, then above procedure will include downloading gcc sources and building
gcc. All this lead to some ... well inconvenience.

Wave is in a different domain. It's primary user do not bother about
portability, code clarity, design pattern. That's why we also need to treat
it differently.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at