Re: [boost] [preprocessor] Variadics suggestion

Subject: Re: [boost] [preprocessor] Variadics suggestion
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-11 02:59:14

On 10/04/2012 09:31 PM, 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.

Equally important is that Boost is targeted to the C++ standard by the 
very nature of what Boost sets out to be. If some compiler does not 
follow the C++ standard in some area, that is no reason for not 
accepting a library which does not intend to find workarounds for that 
compiler in that area.

This is more so the case if the compiler which does not follow the C++ 
standard in that particular area makes no effort to fix its problems for 
that area.

The latter is clearly the case for VC++ and the C++ preprocessor.

So having a library, such as Chaos, which follows the C++ standard as it 
relates to the C++ preprocessor seems an easy decision to me on Boost's 
part, if Paul wanted to submit his library as part of Boost.