[C++-sig] Re: container suite feedback & ideas

[Raoul Gough]

"Joel de Guzman" <joel at boost-consulting.com> writes:

> Raoul Gough <RaoulGough at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If anyone does want to try it out in the mean time, I would suggest
>> starting with testnonlinear.cpp - it already attempts to workaround
>> the partial specialization limitation (untested, of course). I suspect
>> there will be issues with this anyway (in particular, there is a
>> specialized value_traits for the container_proxy value type), not to
>> mention all the other VC6 limitations I don't know about.
>> 
>> How important is MSVC6 support with respect to putting indexing_v2
>> into the next release? Time is getting a bit short, if this compiler
>> is going to present as many difficulties as everybody seems to think.
>
> FWIW, the current indexing suite works on VC6 and 7. Why hurry?
>
> One thing that I don't quite understand with the new indexing suite
> is why it didn't build up on what's already existing. Support for these
> compilers has been there from the start. It seems rather wasteful
> to throw away what has been developed. Porting to VC6/7 is something
> that you'd not want to repeat.

I'm beginning to see what everybody means about those compilers. Maybe
I could have done more to stay within the existing indexing suite
framework, but I thought we discussed these things back in September
when I first started out. At the time, I didn't see an easy way to
adapt it to the separation into traits and algorithms that I went
for. Anyway, I would surely have broken it for MSVC6 in any case, with
the number of extensions that I ended up doing, since I didn't have
MSVC6 available to test with. I'm now starting to get to grips with
the problems, though.

-- 
Raoul Gough.
(setq dabbrev-case-fold-search nil)