From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-01 23:00:10
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Matthew Vogt wrote:
>>Anyhow, my problem with the macro-based IDL is that it obscures the
>>function signatures so badly, partly by separating the components so I
>>don't recognise them as a signature, and partly by encasing them in a
>>dense text block.
>>I think that this:
>> BOOST_IDL_CONST_FN2(print, void, ostream&, int)
>>is readability-wise so far away from:
>> void print(ostream&, int) const;
>>that it is an enormous hurdle for BIL to overcome.
> I'm sympathetic to this point of view. The reason it doesn't seem so bad to me
> is that only a relatively small part of coding with BIL is actually defining
> interfaces; the code which uses the interfaces is just ordinary C++.
> Do you have any suggestions for improving the macro syntax? For instance, do you
> like David Abrahams's suggested syntax better:
> (I'm not sure where to stick 'const')
Or the one I use for my project...
(and many more.. documentation comments and whitespace elided)
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk