Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
Agreed on that. But there are other libraries in Boost as well which 'suffer' from the same 'problem'.
For example?
Boost.Python isn't so widely used and a niche library aimed to solve a very specific problem, for instance.
I don't know why you're so sure this library never will be tested. As I've said during the review I'm working on a test suite, which can be run as an integral part of the regression process. But please consider this to be not a simple task, so I'll need some additional time to fulfill my promise.
Will it cover all the clauses from standard specification?
Why not?
How long will it run?
Can't estimate?
This is a real problem, and I'm aware of it. I assume you're interested in compiling Wave with VC6?
Actually I would be more interested in old sun and gcc compilers. But this is beyond the point.
I'm willing to work on that if there is only a real need in the community. Wave doesn't use any advanced C++ features which couldn't be replaced for older compilers. So I'm pretty confident that this could be done.
No. I think it would be a waste to invest your efforts to try to make it compile for old compilers. After all those users who interested in compiling custom preprocessor should be able to get a hold of latest gcc.
That was my initial thinking when I decided to write Wave ignoring older compilers, so I don't understand your initial concern anymore.
I don't see how the tool could be 'excellent' if the library the tool relies on is not.
Oh! I know numerous example like that. I had an unfortunate need to modify some behavior in doxygen recently - and I really disliked the way it's written. But it doesn't make this tool less valuable. Note I am not saying anything about the wave library - I did not (and should not) look into it's internals.
Again, I don't understand your initial concern anymore.
And I think it shouldn't be a problem to provide precompiled binaries along with the boost releases on some major platforms. Perhaps this would help to remove your initial concern?
I believe we (boost) need a formal notion of a tool that is delivered as a binary plus source code for those platforms we did not provide binary for. BTW binary shouldn't be a part of main delivery packager - only docs should.
That's out of question.
What inconvenience are you actually facing? Sorry, but I did get it yet.
Let's say I want an apple sauce. Instead you giving me an apples (they may be good ones or not so much, since for sauce it doesn't really matter and why waste good apples on sauce) and saying that if I have powerful enough mixer (or whatever it called) I could get a sauce in just a second. And the reason you are telling me is that there are some people out there who may've want slightly less sugar. I believe it's not good enough: give me my sauce - I do not want spend time making one, I do not have an appropriate mixer and I do not have a space to store all these apples.
Sorry, now I've lost you completely. I'm not able to follow your metaphers here. What are the apples? - Boost? And what's the sugar? - Wave? Regards Hartmut