Subject: Re: [boost] [preprocessor] Variadics suggestion
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-11 02:59:14
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.