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.

--Beman


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