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

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