On 10/04/2012 09:31 PM, 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.
Equally important is that Boost is targeted to the C++ standard by the very nature of what Boost sets out to be. If some compiler does not follow the C++ standard in some area, that is no reason for not accepting a library which does not intend to find workarounds for that compiler in that area. This is more so the case if the compiler which does not follow the C++ standard in that particular area makes no effort to fix its problems for that area. The latter is clearly the case for VC++ and the C++ preprocessor. So having a library, such as Chaos, which follows the C++ standard as it relates to the C++ preprocessor seems an easy decision to me on Boost's part, if Paul wanted to submit his library as part of Boost.