Re: [Boost-users] Spirit Porting

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Spirit Porting
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-30 21:07:56

On 10/31/10 7:58 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/30/2010 12:40 PM, Bryce Lelbach wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:15:45 -0800
>> "Robert Ramey"<ramey_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>>
>>> I feel the developer's of spirit have let Bryce down. I'm hoping the spirit
>>> developers can step up and follow through to realize the exceptions developed
>>> for this package.
>
> Robert, I think you're being a bit dramatic. In the course of routine
> library maintenance it's pretty normal for compatibility with broken
> compilers to be lost. It can be sometimes be fixed, but it's not always
> worth the effort. If I made some change to BOOST_FOREACH that caused it
> to stop working on VC6 and someone complained, I'd tell them to stick
> with earlier releases.
>
> So, how to proceed? Someone who cares for this platform submits patches
> to the libraries involved: MPL, Proto, Fusion and Spirit2. Barring that,
> the options are: leave in the Spirit1 code, or else leave them both in
> and conditionally select the old or the new implementation.
>
> But expecting Spirit2 (and 3 and 4...) to continue working on every dang
> ol' broken compiler that Spirit1 ever worked on is unrealistic. (OK,
> vacpp isn't old, but it *is* quite broken.)
>
> That said, I *do* believe that if a new release breaks compatibility
> with old releases, there should be release notes to that effect.
>
>> Some time ago Bryce Lelbach wrote:
>>>>   Can software that uses Spirit Classic be ported to Spirit 2.x and
>>>>   retain the same level of compiler/platform compatibility without
>>>>   significant refactoring of the fundamental structure of the Spirit
>>>>   components of the software?
>>
>> Ramey, Hartmut and Joel, I really would like it if we could not have drama. I'm
>> honored that all three of you put such value in my work. I made this post,
>> though, to start a discussion on the above question. No one has answered it
>> yet :(
>
> I will: no. Not until someone who cares about vacpp does the work to
> make it so, and continues to do the work to keep it so.

I thought that was implied in my "dramatic" reply to Robert's "dramatic"
post. And my implied answer is NO. In my experience, that is simply
not *practically* possible. Robert make it sound so easy. It is not!

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net