Subject: Re: [boost] boost.org Source-Code, Concepts & Idioms.
From: Delroy, Tony (IED) (Tony.Delroy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-16 01:44:46
Your mail makes it sound like you want to look at gcc -E output, but of
course you'd find that much worse. An obvious issue is that while
sometimes macros obfuscate code, sometimes they simplify (e.g. as part
of the API of underlying code). What I imagine being of some potential
(though perhaps small) value is the notion of a fully
standards-compliant compiler (or perhaps an approximation such as
Comeau), for which conditional includes are processed, macros only
required to patch in hacks for non-Standard-compliant compilers have
their Standard substitution performed, but other macros are left alone.
I imagine differentiating macros on this basis would have to be done
manually, after which the processing could be done easily enough with a
bit of sed/awk/perl/Ruby/etc hackery. I don't see enough value in it to
override other demands on my time, but best of luck. - Tony
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of mbiddeg_at_[hidden]
Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 3:21 PM
Subject: [boost] boost.org Source-Code, Concepts & Idioms.
Good morning Guys.
Do you think it feasible to have a section in boost.org that shows (&
permits download) the libraries' source-code at its bare-minimum,
without all the configuration to clutter the code?
The only problem with easily & clearly understanding the boost libraries
is the abundance of conditional compilation directives, & a multitude of
macros for some libraries.
This makes it hard to read & understand. Seeing the bare source-code
without the directives & macros (I know it is very necessary for
portability, & avoiding boiler-plate code) would make the concepts
easier to understand.
In addition, I do agree with Scott Meyers in the section below, from the
"...Second, I think it's regrettable that this kind of innovation
doesn't often get written up and disseminated for the wider C++
development community. Boost does an enviable job of fostering the
creation of useful software, including user-level documentation that is
at least serviceable. I wish it did a better job of getting the word out
on the design and implementation techniques employed by the library
authors, because there's some really interesting-and largely
unknown-stuff going on under the hood in Boost libraries..."
What is your opinion on both these issues?
I do believe the entire C++ community would benefit from both.
Awaiting your feedback.
Have a nice day.
Kizza George Mbidde | Interconnect Billing Systems Analyst | MTN Uganda
| MTN Towers 22 Hannington Road | P.O. Box 24624 Kampala Uganda |
East-Africa | email: mbiddeg_at_[hidden]
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