Re: [boost] [Hana] Formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Hana] Formal review
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-19 05:20:16

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Rob Stewart
> Sent: 18 June 2015 18:43
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [Hana] Formal review
> 
> On June 18, 2015 1:20:39 PM EDT, Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Here is my take on it:
> > 1. The current requirements for Boost libraries do advise authors of
> > only:[1]
> >     a. "Aim for ISO Standard C++"
> >  b. "There is no requirement that a library run on C++ compilers which
> > do not conform to the ISO standard."
> >   c. "There is no requirement that a library run on any particular C++
> > compiler. Boost contributors often try to ensure their libraries work
> > with popular compilers."
> 
> You omitted an important paragraph:
> 
> "Since there is no absolute way to prove portability, many boost submissions demonstrate practical
> portability by compiling and executing correctly with two different C++ compilers, often under
different
> operating systems. Otherwise reviewers may disbelieve that porting is in fact practical."

Most Boost submissions do indeed do this - but this one is pushing compiler technology so hard that
it doesn't work - yet.

This not-qualified-none-reviewer still believes that Hana is portable (and can be made so).

This is a chicken'n'egg issue - I believe it will probably improve compilers if we accept Hana into
Boost.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]