Re: [boost] [preprocessor] Variadics suggestion

Subject: Re: [boost] [preprocessor] Variadics suggestion
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-07 15:49:40

On 10/5/2012 9:49 PM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:31:48 -0400, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
>> on Wed Sep 26 2012, Paul Mensonides <pmenso57-AT-comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Right, and what will change that sad fact?  Attempting to workaround
>>> forever isn't working.  Similarly, is the whole world supposed to not
>>> use variadic templates because VC++ doesn't implement them?  At least
>>> that's likely to change, but a line needs to be drawn.  It is one thing
>>> for a workaround to be an implementation detail.  It is another when it
>>> affects the interface.  In the latter case, IMO, the best thing to do
>>> is provide the interface that *should* exist and either not support the
>>> compilers that don't work or provide some clunkier interface for those
>>> compilers. Doing else cripples technological advancement.
>>
>> I'll mention again that I think we should accept some libraries that
>> won't work on broken compilers (like Chaos).  "Boost works on this
>> compiler" is an important selling point.
>
> 1) How is the modularization/git transition going?
>
> 2) For a macro library, do we still need to have a BOOST_ prefix or could
> I just keep the CHAOS_PP_ prefix?  I cannot use BOOST_PP_ without bending
> over backwards to find contrived names for everything, and the namespace
> of brief names beginning with BOOST_ is tiny--especially when a library
> provides hundreds of user-interface (i.e. not implementation detail
> macros).

BOOST_CHAOS_PP_... seems normal to me.