From: Boris Burger (Boris.Burger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-11 12:30:16
> I was following the first investigations some time ago not very closely,
> but I didn't realise (until lately) that removing the semicolon at
> namespace scope is actually required by the language definition. So I
> think there is no way out: If there is a conflict between text editor and
> language definition, then the text editor must retreat.
> On the other hand, having erroneous code in a library doesn't seem an
> option to me, even if most compilers ignore it.
Unfortunately there is no clear solution to the issue that would
satisfy everyone. Though I completely agree with your opinion
that the libraries should favor the language definition conformance
over user comfort in text editors.
IOW, broken syntax coloring or source parsing in editor is a less
serious issue compared to the inability to use the library in strict
compiling environment. Note that I understand the problems semicolons
are causing with text editors and code formatters. The editors we
use at work suffer the same. But still, we are more than willing to
sacrifice a little bit of that comfort in favor of being able to
use e.g. ptr_containers without patching its sources with every
new Boost release.
But this is just an user opinion, it all depends on how the responsible
people regard this issue.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk