[boost] Re: Preprocessor Docs Comments

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-14 20:10:14

Paul Mensonides wrote:
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gregory Colvin
>
>>> The library is effectively a programming language.
>>
>> Right.  And I would find it easier to understand if I could study its
>> BNF grammar.
>
> (I'm not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not.)
>
> It would be a large grammar.  The library acts like a programming
> language, but it isn't technically a programming language--which gives
> it a lot more inconsistencies and special cases than a proper
> language. (After all, it is built atop Cpp which drastically limits
> its
> abilities.)  However, I suppose it is possible to produce a grammar.

I did notice that the various headers give a good breakdown of the macros
into their groups, so please ignore any previous criticism of that in the
documentation which I have given. It was definitely my fault for not looking
in the header file section of the documentation to see how it is arranged.