Boost logo

Boost :

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 <> 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.

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