Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Nelson, Erik - 2 (erik.l.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-14 13:04:46
Darryl Green wrote:
> Rather, I'm don't want msm, when
> it reaches a wider audience by being in a boost release, being
> written off (by potential users) as unusable experimental rubbish due
> to difficulties with euml.
> Why don't you extend your lib while the compiler vendors work on
> their bugs, we all get new hardware etc. Then submit it (the euml
> support) when it is more usable? Probably all you have to do is wait
> - because there isn't anything obviously wrong with euml - its the
> inability to make practical use of it that causes me to reject it (to
> protect it) for now.
> Of course, thats all just opinion. I could be completely wrong about
> these perceived "dangers" of too early release.
It seems to me that waiting to add a great library until some particular
compiler supports it isn't a great strategy. Msm works on our
production compiler, and it seems to me that the compiler support is
documented. If we fear rejection due to incorrect usage by potential
users who haven't read the documentation, perhaps the library could have
some built-in support for detecting compilers that are known not to work
and issue a coherent compiler-time error message.
I've used old compilers in the past that couldn't compile most of Boost.
It definitely made Boost less useful to me, but it didn't make me feel
like the Boost library should be pared down to just the subset that
worked with my compiler.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk