Re: [Boost-bugs] [Boost C++ Libraries] #4400: BOOST_PP_SEQ_REPLACE fails in corner cases

Subject: Re: [Boost-bugs] [Boost C++ Libraries] #4400: BOOST_PP_SEQ_REPLACE fails in corner cases
From: Boost C++ Libraries (noreply_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-24 18:25:55

#4400: BOOST_PP_SEQ_REPLACE fails in corner cases
--------------------------------------+---------------------------
  Reporter:  Wolf Lammen <ookami1@…>  |      Owner:  no-maintainer
      Type:  Bugs                     |     Status:  new
 Milestone:  Boost 1.44.0             |  Component:  preprocessor
   Version:  Boost 1.44.0             |   Severity:  Problem
Resolution:                           |   Keywords:
--------------------------------------+---------------------------

Comment (by eldiener):

 I agree with you that I am relying on what I tell the user is undefined
 behavior. But that does not mean that the user should rely on that
 behavior. In particular I do not want the user to rely on such behavior.

 You talk about a change in interface as if it exists in an ideal vacuum.
 What happens when that change of interface starts breaking current code,
 such as thousands of lines that used to work fine ? No, sir, while I might
 be willing to add some new macro I am not going to break anything which
 people using Boost PP rely on.

 In your approach an empty seq is perfectly fine, despite the fact that
 testing for emptiness is highly flawed when variadic macros are not
 supported by the compiler. I know about this issue as my entire Boost.VMD
 library is based around the fact that for a compiler which does support
 variadic macros ( which VMD must have ) testing for emptiness is still
 very slightly flawed, but the VMD library can live with that flaw. In
 Boost PP allowing a seq to be empty, ( or allowing a tuple to be empty ),
 is going to cause all sorts of problems in Boost PP simply because it
 cannot be reliably tested in a library which does support non-variadic
 macros.

 I could add to VMD a tuple or a seq which could be empty, because then
 those who use VMD functionality to work with such a seq or tuple will not
 be involved with code breakage, but I am not going to do it with Boost PP.

 If you want to propose a separate macro to be added to Boost PP please
 feel free to do it. I admit I did not look deeply into your solution
 because I was looking for the easiest fix. If your fix is much more
 efficient, using either a separate public macro, or a separate internal
 macro, I will look at this issue again. But please realize that having
 empty seqs ( or tuples ) in current Boost PP, or changing how the public
 macro BOOST_PP_SEQ_REST_N works or should be used, is not an option.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4400#comment:10>
Boost C++ Libraries <http://www.boost.org/>
Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.