At 07:12 AM 4/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:

 > "Vesa Karvonen" <vesa_karvonen@[...].com> writes:
 > 
 > > A trivial way to put this into standardeze would be to add a
 > > translation phase after macro replacement that would convert these
 > > alternative tokens to their usual representation.
 > 
 > If it sounds useful to you, it's sounds good to me.  Why not write up
 > a proposal for the committee?

It seems to me the committee (more particularly, the Evolution Working 
Group) is now more willing to seriously consider small changes to the 
preprocessor. But unless carefully presented, preprocessor changes are 
still likely to face an uphill battle.

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.

HTH,

--Beman


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost