Re: [boost] [Hana] Formal review

-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Rob Stewart Sent: 18 June 2015 18:43 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [Hana] Formal review

On June 18, 2015 1:20:39 PM EDT, Glen Fernandes wrote:

...

Here is my take on it: 1. The current requirements for Boost libraries do advise authors of only:[1] a. "Aim for ISO Standard C++" b. "There is no requirement that a library run on C++ compilers which do not conform to the ISO standard." c. "There is no requirement that a library run on any particular C++ compiler. Boost contributors often try to ensure their libraries work with popular compilers."

You omitted an important paragraph:

"Since there is no absolute way to prove portability, many boost submissions demonstrate practical portability by compiling and executing correctly with two different C++ compilers, often under different operating systems. Otherwise reviewers may disbelieve that porting is in fact practical."

Most Boost submissions do indeed do this - but this one is pushing compiler technology so hard that it doesn't work - yet. This not-qualified-none-reviewer still believes that Hana is portable (and can be made so). This is a chicken'n'egg issue - I believe it will probably improve compilers if we accept Hana into Boost. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830