On 17 Apr 2016 at 8:13, Edward Diener wrote:
The real effort behind such a patch would be navigating the internal politics on getting the patch into trunk. I have no need in my own code for a C99 preprocessor, hence I am not willing to invest that effort. But others with a more pressing need may wish to do so.
Why not bring up the issue on the clang developers mailing list ? Clang source code is not an area which Boost developers can affect in this mailing list, but in the clang developers mailing list you might be able to persuade a clang developer to listen to your suggestion(s).
That would be the "navigating the internal politics" I mentioned. I have no current pressing need for a C99 conforming preprocessor in my own code. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/