Subject: Re: [boost] [preprocessor] Sequences vs. All Other Data Structures
From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-22 05:45:37
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 07:51:11 +0000, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>> > I don't see why one compiler's lack of standards-conformance should
>> > prevent a useful library from becoming part of Boost.
>> Because it is not just MSVC that's the problem, and I know what the
>> tendency will be. This will work with compiler XYZ with *just* this
>> little workaround.... Any workaround whatsoever in Chaos is absolutely
>> unacceptable to me. It ruins the very point of the library.
> The library could be proposed to Boost with the explicit understanding
> that it is intended to work only with fully standards-conforming
> preprocessors. In the long run its presence in Boost might even
> contribute to putting pressure on vendors of non-conformant
> preprocessors to get their act together.
I doubt the latter that would happen. Essentially, because Chaos cannot
be used when targeting VC++, Boost cannot itself use it. Without Boost
itself using it, the target audience is too small. Now, if Boost said
"screw VC++" and used Chaos anyway, that *might* do it. However, it would
break Boost on more compilers than just VC++, and then we'd more likely
just get a Python 2.x vs 3.x instead (apologies, Dave, if I'm mis-
characterizing the current Python state) except with Boost.
Now, IFF there is a place in Boost for a library like Chaos which
currently contains no workarounds and henceforth must not contain
workarounds, then I'd be willing. However, there is no current analog of
that in Boost, nor any Boost policy addressing that type of requirement,
nor any means of enforcement (even a would-be automated enforcement such
as grepping for _MSC_VER (etc.) would work because even slightly
rearranging code in a less than (theoretically) ideal way is still a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk