Beman Dawes <bdawes@[...].org>  writes:

>  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.

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.

-Dave

** and which I'm not sure is even addressing a real-world problem.  It
   might be; I am just not sure.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

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