From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-30 21:19:14
Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> At 08:43 PM 4/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>
> >> To maximize the likelihood of acceptance, consider something like this:
> >>
> >> * Implement the feature in Wave, to establish actual implementation
> >> experience. Perhaps keep a note of how much added Wave code is
> >> required.
> >>
> >> * Let Wave users develop some experience with the feature, to find out
> >> how useful and robust it is in practice.
> >>
> >> * Iterate the above, if the feature isn't quite right yet.
> >>
> >> * Do the same for other small PP features.
> >>
> >> * Write a unified proposal to the committee leaning heavily on the
> >> existing practice that has been developed, with several Boosters as
> >> co-authors.
> >
> >On the other hand, the lack of an implementation or any experience has
> >not kept the EWG from intensely discussing a proposal for adding macro
> >scoping, which IMO is a much bigger change than Vesa's proposing**. It
> >would seem perverse to refuse to give equal attention to a proposal
> >like Vesa's which is based the real need of a really heavy user of the
> >preprocessor.
>
> Regardless of whether PP proposals come in one-at-a-time or unified
> into a single coherent proposal, if they are backed up by real-world
> implementation and use experience they will stand a better chance of
> actually making it all the way into the standard.
You'll get no argument from me there. Your suggestions are good ones.
I just think it might be a good idea to raise the issue with the
committee at an earlier stage to get minds thinking over the
implications and motivations. Especially the motivations. I believe
we'll need to pierce some anti-PP biases.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com