On 7/12/2011 10:51 AM, Joel falcou wrote:
Vicente, no, I miscliked by sayign "variadics". The macro use PP_VARIADIC stuff, I meant "no PP sequence".
Edward, dont you think that compiler without variadic macro support are anyway too crippled to support the kind of metaprogramming you provide and thus will make the library not usable on these.
I honestly do not know. Clearly it is easier for me to just ignore compilers which do not support variadic macros when I program TTI_HAS_TEMPLATE_CHECK_PARAMS or attempt to combine TTI_HAS_TEMPLATE and TTI__HAS_TEMPLATE_CHECK_PARAMS into a single macro. But I did feel I should not do this and support compilers which may not have variadic macro support.
Do we have a list of proper compiler *without* such a support ?
It is not so much compilers without variadic support as compiler switches which turn on variadic macro support. I had a discussion with Paul Mensonides when we worked on pp-lib to provide variadic macro support about the compilers we would support. Originally it was programmed to follow the support in Boost config for variadic macros which I spearheaded. But Paul insisted on a stricter definition of variadic macro support so that warning messages do not appear from some compilers and the compilers either support c99 or c++0x for variadic macros. I am perfectly willing to tell an end-user that they can not use the equivalent of TTI_HAS_TEMPLATE_CHECK_PARAMS functionality if their compiler can not handle variadic macro syntax if that is how the vast majority of others feel about it.