On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Paul Mensonides <pmenso57@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm about to commit a relatively significant changeset to the pp-lib.
Do these changes need to be peer-reviewed?
This is the result of work by Edward Diener and I to add limited variadic support to the pp-lib. Edward can comment in more detail regarding the extent of those changes, but they do not add ground-up support.
If the pp-lib needs to be changed, why not change it radically to add ground-up variadic support? (This is not a rhetoric question. I am sincerely asking as there might be very good reasons not to add ground-up variadic support to Boost.Preprocessor.)
However, there are significant changes to heavily used low-level facilities such as BOOST_PP_TUPLE_ELEM (sometimes even complete implementation replacements). We have put in a great deal of effort to avoid introducing new errors or warnings in either the building of the Boost binaries or in the regression tests. However, we may have missed some issues.
I use Boost.Preprocessor (PP_TUPLE_, etc) pervasively in the implementation of a lot of macros in my projects. I also occasionally use Edward's VMD library. I will haply test the Boost.Preprocessor changes against my code. --Lorenzo