Boost logo

Boost :

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 into a single macro. But I did feel I
should not do this and support compilers which may not have variadic
macro support.

> 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.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at