Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-12 12:17:45
On 7/12/2011 10:51 AM, Joel falcou wrote:
> Vicente, no, I miscliked by sayign "variadics". The macro use
> PP_VARIADIC stuff, I meant "no PP sequence".
> Edward, dont you think that compiler without variadic macro support are
> anyway too crippled to support the kind of metaprogramming you provide
> and thus will make the library not usable on these.
I honestly do not know. Clearly it is easier for me to just ignore
compilers which do not support variadic macros when I program
TTI_HAS_TEMPLATE_CHECK_PARAMS or attempt to combine TTI_HAS_TEMPLATE and
TTI__HAS_TEMPLATE_CHECK_PARAMS into a single macro. But I did feel I
should not do this and support compilers which may not have variadic
> Do we have a list of proper compiler *without* such a support ?
It is not so much compilers without variadic support as compiler
switches which turn on variadic macro support. I had a discussion with
Paul Mensonides when we worked on pp-lib to provide variadic macro
support about the compilers we would support. Originally it was
programmed to follow the support in Boost config for variadic macros
which I spearheaded. But Paul insisted on a stricter definition of
variadic macro support so that warning messages do not appear from some
compilers and the compilers either support c99 or c++0x for variadic macros.
I am perfectly willing to tell an end-user that they can not use the
equivalent of TTI_HAS_TEMPLATE_CHECK_PARAMS functionality if their
compiler can not handle variadic macro syntax if that is how the vast
majority of others feel about it.