On 10/5/2012 9:49 PM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:31:48 -0400, 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.
1) How is the modularization/git transition going?
2) For a macro library, do we still need to have a BOOST_ prefix or could I just keep the CHAOS_PP_ prefix? I cannot use BOOST_PP_ without bending over backwards to find contrived names for everything, and the namespace of brief names beginning with BOOST_ is tiny--especially when a library provides hundreds of user-interface (i.e. not implementation detail macros).
BOOST_CHAOS_PP_... seems normal to me.