Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-14 15:46:51
>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
I agree. Besides, if not used, eUML will wait long for compiler
support. Compiler writers do need some users complaints as I just saw
a few weeks ago.
>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 think it's a good idea! EUML could simply refuse to compile if
provided the wrong compiler.
>So long as MSM works on multiple, highly-regarded compilers, and its failure on others
>can be demonstrated reasonably to be due to failure to comply with the standard, then its portability
>will have been demonstrated. If it only works on one compiler, then its portability case is diminished.
EUML compiles well on g++4.3, and reasonably well on VC9/10 and g++4.4.
Darryl, I understand your point and appreciate that you want to
protect eUML but I think that propagating it is the best solution to
make compilers improve.
More warnings in the doc would also help.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk