Re: [boost] [preprocessor] Patch for stringize.hpp

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-21 17:02:53

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams

> > (BTW, building Boost is not an effective test of whether the pp-lib 
> > works.  The libraries that need building don't use even 
> close to all 
> > of the library, so it isn't an adequate test.  You should at least 
> > include the header-only libraries.)
> 
> Wouldn't running all the Boost tests, making the change, 
> running them again, and looking for differences do a pretty 
> good job of it?

In some ways, yes.  Running the pp-lib regressions alone is
insufficient--because I can't test all possible combinations on VC++.  Running
the entire set of Boost tests makes it alot more likely to pick up a flaw.
Every once in a while, a user has a problem with some combination of primitives
(such as STRINGIZE + SEQ_ENUM), which basically amounts to a place where I
haven't eliminated or accounted for the build up in time (i.e. before the
structural result is needed), so then I have to figure out a way to do that.
So, the regression tests may pass, and that is an indication of usability, but
it is not an indication of complete stability (on VC++ and Metrowerks < 9).  The
bugs in other preprocessors (even the significant ones) have a local
effect--i.e. if you do XYZ, it will always work or always fail.  So, running all
of the regression test might flush out a "combinatorial" failure related to this
change (i.e. substituting one workaround for another in STRINGIZE), and it might
not, it may also be that the alternate workaround happens to work just as well
as the previous one.

Regards,
Paul Mensonides