Re: [boost] Conforming tuples?

From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-26 17:33:34

Joel de Guzman wrote:

> A question for you Borland die-hards is what's up with the
> state of the compiler? Has it stagnated or are new developments
> going? I remember applying to be a Borland beta tester some
> years ago but it fell on deaf ears, and I never looked back
> again. It seems that they don't care. So why should we care?
> Don't get me wrong. I used to have a loyalty towards it. I
> learned my first Pascal program with their original compiler.

Borland seem to have been confused trying to support a new ISO
conforming compiler with an EDG front-end (released as a preview) as a
new product for new customers, and maintaining their old compiler with
its GUI extensions and known problems for existing customers.

It seems every time they came close to shipping a product, corporate
strategy moved, everyone dropped ship and moved into the other
direction again :?(

A new compiler is finally promised before the end of the year, so
hopefully in the next 4 weeks!  This will be built on the BCB6
toolchain though, not the EDG preview.

I am hoping there will be progress (not least because we have a large
codebase that relies on those GUI extensions, that always proves too
expensive to port) but suspect it will continue to be a burden on
anyone supporting that compiler in their libraries for some time to
come.

The Borland field test process is a closely guarded secret so I have no
idea what it actually takes to get on board.  If you are still
interested in testing (or any other regular Boosters for that matter) I
will rattle a cage or two to see if Borland will invite you onto the
next FT, whenever that is.  They say Boost compatibility is an
important issue for them, especially as we customers keep telling them
it is a concern for us!

Back on topic, TR1 is an important library, and I would really like my
production compiler to come as close to supporting it as possible.  I
am equally fed up reading through boost source with a large number of
workarounds to support it.  I would be very happy with an alternate
implementation (such as existing tuple) that did not pollute new code,
was not entirely conforming, and continued to be supported by the
Borland community - much as Spirit 1.6 remains for legacy support.

I guess I am trying to push more work on John, who already has his
hands full trying to play header tricks already!

-- 
AlisdairM