Re: [boost] Release Tools Analysis Part I: Build systems

From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-05 12:20:11

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Aug 05 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, I submitted a patch to SCons providing a python extension
>> module around ucpp (http://pornin.nerim.net/ucpp/) to provide a
>> 'more accurate' C/C++ dependency scanner, long before wave was around.
> 
> Does anyone know if ucpp is actually conforming?  Until very recently,
> most preprocessors were badly broken (and maybe most still are).  If
> it conforms, it would be interesting to benchmark it against Wave.

Actually, I had an argument with the ucpp author some years ago because
ucpp stopped to parse boost code properly, which the ucpp author claimed
was due to some different interpretation of the standard.

That was when I decided to switch from ucpp to boost.wave in Synopsis...

>> Steven refused that, believing that it could (and should) all be done
>> in pure python. 
> 
> Well, with a great deal of due respect to Steven, he's wrong.  Sure it
> /can/ be done in pure python, but /should/ it be?  Before we had
> insane C++ template metaprograms, the cost of preprocessing and lexing
> typically swamped that of any other C/C++ compilation phase, just
> because they had to deal with more data (individual characters).  And
> now we have insane preprocessor metaprograms, so things have not
> gotten any easier on the C/C++ preprocessor.

I agree with you. I think the technical question about the merits
of pure-python programs aside, this is another case of the NIH syndrome.

>> That was many years ago, and the situation hasn't substantially
>> changed since then.
> 
> Sounds familiar.

Indeed. :-(

Regards,
                Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...