On 4/22/2012 3:21 PM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
On 22.04.2012, at 21:05, Edward Diener wrote:
On 4/22/2012 5:45 AM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 07:51:11 +0000, Nathan Ridge wrote:
I don't see why one compiler's lack of standards-conformance should prevent a useful library from becoming part of Boost.
Because it is not just MSVC that's the problem, and I know what the tendency will be. This will work with compiler XYZ with *just* this little workaround.... Any workaround whatsoever in Chaos is absolutely unacceptable to me. It ruins the very point of the library.
The library could be proposed to Boost with the explicit understanding that it is intended to work only with fully standards-conforming preprocessors. In the long run its presence in Boost might even contribute to putting pressure on vendors of non-conformant preprocessors to get their act together.
I doubt the latter that would happen. Essentially, because Chaos cannot be used when targeting VC++, Boost cannot itself use it.
This is not completely true. Even though it would provide more work for a library implementor, a library could choose to use Boost Chaos for compilers that support it and choose to use Boost PP for compilers which do not ( including VC ).
What advantage would that give the library implementor over just using Boost PP?
The same advantage C++ programmers get when they use standard library containers instead of C arrays. They would be using better technology and promoting that technology. I do know that they would still have to use Boost PP for compilers that do not completely implement the preprocessor correctly for C++11, but there is a gratification of using better technology when one can. Being held back from using better technology because of compiler deficiencies, even in a multi-compiler environment, is not my idea of pleasurable programming.