Subject: Re: [boost] [test] trunk breakage [PATCH]
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-06 02:29:29
Eric Niebler <eric <at> boostpro.com> writes:
> On 1/6/2010 2:38 PM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > Any reason to prefer this implementation to the one currently in trunk?
> You mean, aside from the fact that it is standard C++03, conforms to
> Boost's coding guidelines, requires no compiler-specific workarounds,
> and is unlikely to be broken on platforms that are not being actively
> tested; whereas the one currently on trunk is none of those things? Not
> really, no. :-P
Current one does not require compiler specific workarounds, is unlikely to be
broken on platforms that are not being actively tested, is cleaner, uses correct
tools for the job and conforms to the commonly supported (included next C++) C
standard (not sure about what specific coding standard you refer to).
Boost.Test does use several interfaces in various places which are not 100%
portable according to C++03. Not sure if this innocent macro worth the trouble
of maintaining the version which needs to be eventually changed (to use va_copy
once it is commonly available).
That said, if you feel strongly about this - go ahead and check this in.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk