Re: [C++-sig] pyste, gccxml and boost ublas, random number generator etc

Roman Yakovenko wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Stefan Seefeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>Roman Yakovenko wrote:
>>
>>>The Brad King is right,
>>>source code should be ported to GCCXML compiler. This is the main
>>>problem.
>>
>>I don't agree with that. From a user's perspective, gccxml itself
>>is not a compiler, but a compiler emulator. Users want to 'see' the
>>code as it is seen by a particular compiler (such as gcc or VC++),
>>for whatever reason.
>>It is one thing to say that the emulator doesn't support any particular
>>compiler, but another that the emulator just turned into a compiler
>>which the user (i.e. library developer) has to special-case for.
> 
> 
> What is the difference from the final user? There is no difference. There is 
> some "tool" that can not parse\read source files. And he should adjust the files
> to be parsed by the tool.

That depends on who the user is and what he is doing with the tool.
In case of code documentation where the code special-cases for various compilers
(to work around limitations and bugs) there is definitely an interest in activation
of the various compiler-specific branches so they can be documented individually.

And even for code generation, having to special-case for yet another compiler
is quite a burden for developers, so it would be best if the tool being used
could be made to behave as much as possible as the real compiler used by the
developer to compile the code (I figure that letting all compiler vendors
agree on the same standard is a bit unrealistic ;-) ).

>>But we are getting way off-topic. May be we should continue on
>>the synopsis list ?
> 
> 
> I am not subscribed to the list.

Oh, would you mind to subscribe then ? I believe these discussions are of
interest for synopsis ML subscribers, and so I would prefer to share and
archive them there.

> I will send all my answers, question directly to you. Is this okay with you?

It is, though I would prefer the list.

Thanks,
		Stefan