"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:upt5k867g.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
Doesn't Walter update DMC++ quite often?
Yes, but there are lots of bugs on his list ;-)
Would it be better to just report bugs to him and wait for the fixes?
Walter seems to be very conscientious about bug reports, but I don't think you can assume that if you report a bug it will be fixed in a matter of weeks.
I have no major objection to the patches; I'm just slightly concerned about crufting up the codebase to add support for a previously unsupported compiler if it will happen without changes in a few weeks anyway.
I'd like to see boost support DMC soon. IMO, the best way to motivate Walter to fix the bugs which most affect boost is to run and publish the regression tests for DMC.
But if we cover all the bugs up with workarounds he'll never see any problems.
(I have a feeling I'm about to be asked to volunteer :-) ) I tend to think he'll be more motivated if DMC passes, say, 42% of the tests than if it passes 0-5%. In the latter case, judging by his reaction when preprocessor problems were reported to him earlier this year, I think he might conclude that the problems must be with boost. (After all, DMC can't be *that* bad.)
Wow, that's pretty arrogant. If he has that attitude, Boost test failure reports aren't going to make any difference.
So I'd like to see patches committed if they give substantial parts of boost some hope of compiling with DMC.
But this is idle speculation.
Hum. Maybe you should ask Walter what he's going to be responsive to. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com