Re: [boost] Call for interest - BOOST_AUTO_FUNCTION

Subject: Re: [boost] Call for interest - BOOST_AUTO_FUNCTION
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-18 17:10:03

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]
> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for the triple reply. Even though it's not a difficult change, I'm
> > torn. My gripe with making it one macro is it implies extra surrounding
> > parentheses and simply looks a bit more cluttered and confusing.
>
> I'm jumping in at the middle here, so pardon my questions/interjection.
>

No need to apologize. I'd much rather more people than fewer give their
opinion here.

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]
> wrote:

> I would like to say that the parentheses don't bother me, that's
> already the case with Boost.Concept_check's macro system, and is
> something that can be addressed by documentation and (lots) of
> examples.
>

That is true, however, documentation and examples also make the current
approach easy to work with and, at least in my opinion, it's simpler for
many use-cases (though at 2:1 I'm looking to be the minority here).

>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Dean Michael Berris <
> mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> You're addressing a problem that could very well still be addressed by
> the language designers -- this macro would only be useful in case the
> standard doesn't change.
>

Ah, yeah! That's it. It would definitely be much more feasible to have the
1-macro version implementation be changed to just transform the arguments to
whatever the standard defines as the proper syntax. With my current
approach, that is potentially not possible (I.E. requirements must come
before the function name). I'm convinced for real now, I'll switch over to a
1 macro version.

-- 
-Matt Calabrese