Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-14 15:46:51
>It seems to me that waiting to add a great library until some particular
>compiler supports it isn't a great strategy. Msm works on our
>production compiler, and it seems to me that the compiler support is
>documented.
I agree. Besides, if not used, eUML will wait long for compiler
support. Compiler writers do need some users complaints as I just saw
a few weeks ago.
>If we fear rejection due to incorrect usage by potential
>users who haven't read the documentation, perhaps the library could have
>some built-in support for detecting compilers that are known not to work
>and issue a coherent compiler-time error message.
I think it's a good idea! EUML could simply refuse to compile if
provided the wrong compiler.
>So long as MSM works on multiple, highly-regarded compilers, and its failure on others
>can be demonstrated reasonably to be due to failure to comply with the standard, then its portability
>will have been demonstrated. If it only works on one compiler, then its portability case is diminished.
EUML compiles well on g++4.3, and reasonably well on VC9/10 and g++4.4.
Darryl, I understand your point and appreciate that you want to
protect eUML but I think that propagating it is the best solution to
make compilers improve.
More warnings in the doc would also help.